semantic, pragmatic and discourse perspectives of preposition use · 2020. 5. 26. · perspectives...

Semantic, pragmatic and discourse perspectives of preposition use:

a study of Indonesian locatives

Pacific Linguistics 583 Pacific Linguistics is a publisher specialising in grammars and linguistic descriptions, dictionaries and other materials on languages of the Pacific, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, East Timor, southeast and south Asia, and Australia. Pacific Linguistics, established in 1963 through an initial grant from the Hunter Douglas Fund, is associated with the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at The Australian National University. The authors and editors of Pacific Linguistics publications are drawn from a wide range of institutions around the world. Publications are refereed by scholars with relevant expertise, who are usually not members of the editorial board.

FOUNDING EDITOR: Stephen A. Wurm EDITORIAL BOARD: John Bowden, Malcolm Ross and Darrell Tryon (Managing Editors),

I Wayan Arka, David Nash, Andrew Pawley, Paul Sidwell, Jane Simpson

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD:

Karen Adams, Arizona State University Alexander Adelaar, University of Melbourne Peter Austin, School of Oriental and African

Studies Byron Bender, University of Hawai‘i Walter Bisang, Johannes Gutenberg-

Universität Mainz Robert Blust, University of Hawai‘i David Bradley, La Trobe University Lyle Campbell, University of Utah James Collins, Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia Bernard Comrie, Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology Soenjono Dardjowidjojo, Universitas Atma

Jaya Matthew Dryer, State University of New York

at Buffalo Jerold A. Edmondson, University of Texas

at Arlington Nicholas Evans, University of Melbourne Margaret Florey, Monash University William Foley, University of Sydney Karl Franklin, Summer Institute of

Linguistics Charles Grimes, Universitas Kristen Artha

Wacana Kupang Nikolaus Himmelmann, Ruhr-Universität

Bochum

Lillian Huang, National Taiwan Normal University

Bambang Kaswanti Purwo, Universitas Atma Jaya

Marian Klamer, Universiteit Leiden Harold Koch, The Australian National

University Frantisek Lichtenberk, University of

Auckland John Lynch, University of the South Pacific Patrick McConvell, Australian Institute of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

William McGregor, Aarhus Universitet Ulrike Mosel, Christian-Albrechts-

Universität zu Kiel Claire Moyse-Faurie, Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique Bernd Nothofer, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-

Universität Frankfurt am Main Ger Reesink, Universiteit Leiden Lawrence Reid, University of Hawai‘i Jean-Claude Rivierre, Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique Melenaite Taumoefolau, University of

Auckland Tasaku Tsunoda, University of Tokyo John Wolff, Cornell University Elizabeth Zeitoun, Academica Sinica

Semantic, pragmatic and discourse perspectives of preposition use: a study of Indonesian locatives

Dwi Noverini Djenar

Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University

Published by Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Copyright in this edition is vested with Pacific Linguistics First published 2007 National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry: Dwi Noverini Djenar Semantic, pragmatic and discourse perspectives of preposition use: a study of Indonesian locatives Bibliography. ISBN 9780858835665 (pbk.). 1. Indonesian language – Prepositions. 2. Indonesian language – Grammar. 3. Indonesian language – Textbooks for foreign speakers – English. I. The Australian National University. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. Pacific Linguistics. II. Title. 499.22157 Copyedited by Jason Lee Typeset by Sue Greenshields and Jeanette Coombes Cover design by Julie Manley Printed and bound by Addcolour Digital Pty Ltd, Fyshwick, Canberra

v

Table of contents

List of figures viii Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations and transcription symbols x

Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 The prepositions and their interchangeability 1 1.2 Previous studies on Indonesian prepositions 3 1.3 Developing an alternative description 6 1.4 The data 7 1.5 Closing remarks 9

Chapter 2: Meaning, inference, and discourse 10 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Meaning as ‘rules of use’ 10

2.2.1 The question of polysemy 13 2.2.2 Determining sense distinction 17 2.2.3 Meaning and conceptualization 18 2.2.4 Non-conceptual aspects of preposition use 22

2.3 Strategies for deriving inferences 24 2.4 Medium, genre, and formality 28

2.4.1 Differences between spoken and written discourse 28 2.4.2 Genre 30

2.4.2.1 Narrative discourse 32 2.4.2.2 Expository discourse 33 2.4.2.3 Procedural discourse 34

Chapter 3: Expressing generality and specificity with di 35 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 The semantics and pragmatics of di 36

3.2.1 Di as a general localizer 37 3.2.1.1 Contextual interpretations of di 38

3.2.1.1.1 Viewpoint 39

vi

3.2.1.1.2 Functional interaction and prototypical locational relations 40

3.2.1.1.3 Conventionalized expressions 44 3.2.1.1.4 Discourse contexts 45

3.2.2 Interpreting spatial occurrences of di 47 3.2.2.1 Static and dynamic contexts 47 3.2.2.2 Relations of contact and support 52 3.2.2.3 Landmark as surface 54 3.2.2.4 Containing and enclosing relations 58

3.3 Extended meanings of di 60 3.3.1 Di with human Landmarks 60 3.3.2 Di in temporal phrases 64 3.3.3 Di with abstract Landmarks 69

3.4 Compound prepositions with di 75 3.4.1 Compounds for indicating specificity 76 3.4.2 Compounds as explicit expressions of default locations 79

3.4.2.1 Compounds for contrasting locations 79 3.4.2.2 Compounds for emphasis 82 3.4.2.3 Compounds for confirming default locations 83 3.4.2.4 Stylistic effects 84 3.4.2.5 Compounds, genre, and medium 85

3.5 Genre, medium, and the distribution of di 89 3.6 Conclusion 91

Chapter 4: Borrowing and ‘split’ semantic range in pada 93 4.1 Introduction 93 4.2 Synchronic description of pada 94

4.2.1 Locational meanings 94 4.2.1.1 Positional meaning 98 4.2.1.2 Part-whole meaning 101 4.2.1.3 Locational use with human Landmarks 103

4.2.2 Directional meanings 104 4.2.2.1 Directional use with non-human Landmarks 104 4.2.2.2 Directional use with human Landmarks 106

4.2.2.2.1 Focus of transfer 107 4.2.2.2.2 Focus of verbal communication 109 4.2.2.2.3 Focus of emotion 110 4.2.2.2.4 Focus of other thought processes 112 4.2.2.2.5 Focus of visual and gestural acts 113 4.2.2.2.6 Pada and kepada 115

4.3 Pada and functional interaction 119 4.4 Other extensions 121

vii

4.4.1 Extensions of locational meanings 121 4.4.2 Extensions of directional meanings 125 4.4.3 Temporal meaning 127

4.5 The development of pada 132 4.5.1 From Sanskrit pãda to Indonesian pada 136 4.5.2 From Sanskrit padá to Indonesian pada 140

4.6 Pada and affective meaning 146 4.6.1 Viewpoint contrast 146 4.6.2 Pada in the discourse about human health 150

4.7 Optionality of pada 154 4.8 Genre, medium, and the distribution of pada 156 4.9 Conclusion 160

Chapter 5: Denoting ‘inside’ and ‘below’ with dalam 162 5.1 Introduction 162 5.2 Spatial meanings of dalam 163

5.2.1 Inside three-dimensional spaces 166 5.2.2 Inside two-dimensional spaces 168 5.2.3 Below the surface of the Landmark 170 5.2.4 Part-whole relations 173 5.2.5 Dalam with human Landmarks 178

5.3 Abstract meanings 178 5.3.1 Extensions of ‘inside three-dimensional spaces’ 178 5.3.2 Extensions of ‘inside two-dimensional spaces’ 182 5.3.3 Extensions of ‘below the surface of the Landmark’ 185 5.3.4 Extensions of part-whole relations 187

5.4 Temporal meanings 190 5.5 Contrasting locations with dalam 198 5.6 Alternation of dalam with other prepositions 200

5.6.1 Dalam and di dalam 200 5.6.2 Dalam and ke dalam 203

5.7 Genre, medium, and the distribution of dalam 205 5.8 Conclusion 209

Chapter 6: Conclusion 211 6.1 Summary of the study 211 6.2 Concerning ‘locational/directional’ and ‘spatial/abstract’ distinction 212 6.3 Semantic content, genre, medium, and preposition selection 213 6.4 Further research 214

Data sources 215 Appendix 220 References 221

viii

List of figures: Figure 3.1: Summary of the meanings of di 75 Figure 3.2: The distribution of compound prepositions across mediums

and genres (all tokens totaling 187) 85 Figure 3.3: The distribution of di, pada and dalam in the corpus 89 Figure 3.4: The distribution of di (including compound forms) across genres

and mediums 90 Figure 3.5: The distribution of di across genres and mediums 91

Figure 4.1: The relation between di and pada with human Landmarks 115 Figure 4.2: The relation between pada and kepada 118 Figure 4.3: Summary of the spatial meanings of pada 119 Figure 4.4: Extensions of Pada1 and Pada3 124 Figure 4.5: Extensions of Pada2 125 Figure 4.6: Extensions of Pada4 and Pada5 127 Figure 4.7: Extension from Pada1 to temporal meaning 131 Figure 4.8: The development of pada from Sanskrit to Indonesian 145 Figure 4.9: The distribution of pada by genre 157 Figure 4.10: The distribution of pada by genre and medium 157 Figure 4.11: The distribution of pada by Landmark type 158 Figure 4.12: The distribution of pada in narrative discourse 158 Figure 4.13: The distribution of pada in expository discourse 159 Figure 4.14: The distribution of pada in procedural discourse 160

Figure 5.1: Frequency of dalam by Landmark type 165 Figure 5.2: Spatial meanings of dalam and their contextual possibilities 177 Figure 5.3: The relations between the spatial meanings of dalam and the

inferences in di and pada 177 Figure 5.4: Extensions of Dalam1 182 Figure 5.5: Extensions of Dalam2 185 Figure 5.6: Variant of Dalam3 186 Figure 5.7: Extensions of Dalam4 189 Figure 5.8: The interchangeability between dalam, di, and pada in non-spatial uses 189 Figure 5.9: Temporal use of dalam 1a 196 Figure 5.10: Temporal use of dalam 1b 196 Figure 5.11: Temporal use of dalam 2 196 Figure 5.12: Total tokens of all prepositions in all genres and mediums 205 Figure 5.13: The distribution of dalam by genre 205 Figure 5.14: The distribution of dalam by genre and medium 206 Figure 5.15: The distribution of dalam by Landmark type 206 Figure 5.16: The distribution of dalam in narrative discourse 207 Figure 5.17: The distribution of dalam in expository discourse 208 Figure 5.18: The distribution of dalam in procedural discourse 208

Figure 6.1: Semantic relations between di, pada and dalam 212

ix

Acknowledgements

This work is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation. I would like to thank my supervisors, Nick Evans and Lesley Stirling, who contributed in significant ways to the shaping of this work. Nick’s enthusiasm, energy, and insights as a linguist have encouraged me enormously. Lesley has sustained me with her gentle criticisms and invaluable suggestions, for which I will always be grateful.

I wish to thank Sander Adelaar for his comments on earlier drafts of this work and for his encouragement in getting this work published. I am grateful to Anita Ray and Greg Bailey for explaining the meanings of Sanskrit terms and for pointing me to relevant references, to the Melbourne Austronesian seminar group for stimulating discussions, and to Michael Ewing for allowing me to use his spoken data. I also wish to thank Hubert Cuyckens and two anonymous readers for their comments and critique of the earlier version of this work.

The following people have kindly allowed me to tape their conversations and lectures to be used as data for this study: Santoso Budiningtyas, Franky Blanteran de Rozari, Joe Djenar, Retno Intani, Endang Sri Kentjonowati, Multamia RMT Lauder, Ida Rosliani, Dewi Savitri, Sunu Wasono, Monica Weber, and Richard Soemitro Weber.

My family and friends have been a constant source of moral support: my parents, my colleagues/friends in the Asian Studies Program at La Trobe University, Umar Muslim, and Peter Chamberlain.

x

Abbreviations and transcription symbols

CLASS classifier DEF definite article DIR directional EMP emphatic marker FUT future marker IMPERF imperfective INDEF indefinite article LOC locative NEG negative marker PASS passive PERF perfective Pl plural POSS possessive PP prepositional phrase PRT particle RDP reduplication REL relative marker Sg singular SRC source 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person .. short pause ... long pause = vowel lengthening - truncated word -- truncated intonation unit <Q Q> quoted speech @ laugh <X X> inaudible word(s)

1

1 Introduction

1.1 The prepositions and their interchangeability

Indonesian has three locative prepositions, namely, di, pada and dalam—roughly corresponding to the English ‘on, in, at’—which are often interchangeable. That is, one can be substituted for another for the same spatial, abstract, or temporal configuration without an immediately apparent difference in meaning, as seen in instances of spatial use in (1a and 1b) and (2a and 2b), abstract use in (3a and 3b) and (4a and 4b), and temporal use in (5a and 5b) and (6a and 6b).

(1) a. Bekas-bekas peluru di tembok gedung tampak jelas. trace-RDP bullet LOC wall building look clear ‘Traces of bullet on the building walls are clearly visible.’ (Ramlan 1980:66)

b. Bekas-bekas peluru pada tembok gedung tampak jelas. (Ramlan 1980:66)

(2) a. Ku-sobek kertas reklame Pepsodent yang tertempel di 1Sg-tear paper advertisement Pepsodent REL be.stuck LOC

dinding kamar-ku. wall room-1Sg.POSS ‘I tore the Pepsodent advertisement which was stuck on my bedroom wall.’ (Ramlan 1980:66)

b. Kusobek kertas reklame Pepsodent yang tertempel pada dinding kamarku. (Ramlan 1980:66)

(3) a. Dia tidak mendapatkan-nya dalam kehidupan sosial-nya. 3Sg NEG get-3Sg LOC life social-3Sg.POSS ‘S/he doesn’t get it in her/his social life.’ (Ramlan 1980:66)

b. Dia tidak mendapatkannya di kehidupan sosialnya.1

(4) a. Ia sudah bekerja di perusahaan asing. 3Sg PERF work LOC company foreign

‘S/he is already working in (with) a foreign company.’ (Vimala 1984:60)

b. Ia sudah bekerja pada perusahaan asing. (Vimala 1984:60)

1 Examples with no source given in brackets are my own.

2 Chapter 1

(5) a. Seorang gadis berkuda di pagi hari. CLASS girl ride.a.horse LOC morning day ‘A girl rides a horse in the morning.’ (Ramlan 1980:66)

b. Seorang gadis berkuda pada pagi hari. (Ramlan 1980:66)

(6) a. Produksi beras kita dalam tahun 1984 yang lalu mencapai production rice lPl.POSS LOC year 1984 REL ago reach

25.8 juta ton. 25.8 million tonne ‘Our rice production in 1984 reached 25.8 million tonnes.’ (Effendi and Aritonang 1993:50)

b. Produksi beras kita pada tahun 1984 yang lalu mencapai 25.8 juta ton. (Effendi and Aritonang 1993:50)

In addition to being interchangeable, the prepositions di and dalam can co-occur, forming the compound preposition di dalam ‘in, inside’. However, di does not co-occur with pada, and likewise, pada does not co-occur with dalam, so the forms *di pada and *pada dalam are not attested.2

(7) Sepanjang hari ia berkurung di dalam kamar. throughout day 3Sg be.in.a.cage LOC inside room ‘All day long she locked herself up in the room.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:44)3

Even though interchangeability of prepositions is common in Indonesian discourse and has been observed by some—as can be seen in the quotes below—surprisingly there is no explanation available on this aspect of preposition use. Ramlan (1980:65) describes the substitutability of di, pada and dalam in spatial use as follows.

Kadang-kadang kata depan di sejalan dengan kata depan pada dan dalam, karena kedua kata itu juga dipakai untuk menandai makna ‘tempat berada’. ‘Sometimes the preposition di is similar to the prepositions pada and dalam, since these last two words are also used to denote ‘a location’ (Ramlan 1980:65).

Similarly, Effendi and Aritonang (1993:49–50) mention the substitutability between di and pada in temporal use as follows.

Preposisi waktu yang mengacu terhadap titik waktu dipergunakan preposisi di dan pada. Realisasi penggunaan di dan pada agar mengacu terhadap titik waktu harus dipertimbangkan. Maksudnya, pemakaian itu tergantung pada ukuran waktu yang mengikuti preposisi tersebut ….’ ‘To refer to a point in time the prepositions di and pada are used. The use of di and pada in this manner must be taken into account. That is, their use depends on the time measure which follows them….’ (Effendi and Aritonang 1993:49–50)

Interchangeability suggests that there is some overlap in the semantic range of these prepositions, which enables speakers to choose from a set of available alternatives. Because of this, it is often difficult to discern any meaning difference between di, pada and

2 Slametmuljana (1957:169) states that pada is historically derived from dipada, however, no evidence is

given for this claim. 3 Dalam is glossed as ‘inside’ when appearing as a locational noun in a complex preposition and as ‘LOC’

when appearing as a simple preposition.

Introduction 3

dalam, which may lead some to the view that they are synonymous. However, studies on semantically similar items in other languages show that interchangeability does not always mean synonymy, and that synonymy is usually partial rather than total (Haiman 1985:22).

The absence of explanation regarding di, pada and dalam raises several questions, particularly concerning the extent and motivations for the interchangeability. How semantically similar are these prepositions? Are they always interchangeable? If not, under what conditions is interchangeability possible? What kinds of factors determine their interchangeability? Is it the inherent semantic content of the prepositions or are there other factors? Further, if these prepositions are interchangeable, what motivates speakers to select one over another?4 In other words, if speakers have at their disposal three prepositions which semantically overlap, what factors guide their selection?

This study aims to address the interchangeability issue beyond a brief mention and will attempt to answer the above questions by examining the uses of the prepositions in speech and writing and in different types of discourse (or genre). It is hypothesized that overlaps in the semantic range provide speakers with alternatives for expressing the same situation, but preposition selection is motivated not only by semantic considerations, but also by pragmatic and discourse-related factors. Such things as whether the message is spoken or written, to whom it is conveyed, and for what purpose it is conveyed, all correlate in motivating preposition choice.

Before I put forth my proposal for an alternative description, a closer examination of previous studies in the following section would give a better picture of how these prepositions are generally accounted for.

1.2 Previous studies on Indonesian prepositions

There are a number of studies on Indonesian prepositions, either as part of grammar textbooks (e.g. Slametmuljana 1957, Li 1976, Chaer 1990, Sneddon 1996) or in linguistic studies specifically devoted to prepositions (e.g. Ramlan 1980, Vimala 1984, Asisi Datang 1989, Lapoliwa 1992, Effendi and Aritonang 1993).5 Most present their descriptions by giving one general meaning followed by exemplification of the prepositions’ various uses, interchangeability being noted in passing.

Ramlan, for example, begins his description of di by defining it as a preposition which denotes ‘a place where something is located’, suggesting that this is the general meaning of di. He then states that di can be followed by a temporal noun but not by a human noun. How this temporal meaning relates to the general meaning is not clarified.

Similarly, Lapoliwa (1992) defines di, pada and dalam as prepositions denoting one-, two-, and three-dimensional locations respectively, thus the general meaning of these prepositions are viewed in terms of a single dimensionality. However, if one commits oneself to this kind of definition, one is also forced to say that the three prepositions cannot semantically overlap. In other words, by definition di cannot be described as a preposition denoting one, two, and also three dimensional locations. Likewise, pada cannot denote two dimensional locations as well as one and three dimensional ones, and dalam cannot denote three dimensional locations as well as one and two dimensional ones. This kind of definition clearly cannot hold not only because interchangeability itself already suggests an

4 For simplicity I use the term ‘speakers’ to refer to both speakers and writers. 5 An earlier study by Roolvink (1948) examines written data from classical and modern Malay.

4 Chapter 1

overlap in meaning, but also because dimensionality is, to a large extent, a matter of construal.

Another issue with current studies concerns the nature of the defining terms. To be more specific, the terms used to define the general meaning of a preposition are very broad, such that they either fail to capture the distinction between prepositions or are not specific enough to be able to explain the constraints on their uses. For instance, pada is broadly defined in Chaer (1990) as a preposition that denotes a location which is ‘not a real place’, however, what is meant by ‘not a real place’ is not specified. Ramlan (1980:91) uses the phrase tidak secara khusus menyatakan tempat ‘not specifically denoting a place’ for the same thing. Similarly, the term kata benda insani ‘human noun (noun denoting a person/human)’ is used in the descriptions of di to indicate one of its constraints of use (namely, that di cannot occur with a human noun), but whether this constraint includes pronouns and proper names alike is never explained. The occurrence of di with a personal pronoun such as kita, as shown in (8), then raises two questions. The first is whether personal pronouns are not included in the category of ‘human nouns’, and the second is, if they are included, whether the occurrence in (8) is simply unaccounted for by the studies.

(8) Di kita ini peran wiraswasta ini yang kadang-kadang susah LOC 1Pl this role entrepreneur this REL sometimes-RDP difficult

kita cari ya. 1Pl search yes ‘In our community, it is this entrepreneurial role which is sometimes difficult to find, isn’t it.’ (S/E-TUTO)

Descriptions such as Ramlan’s, Chaer’s or Lapoliwa’s may have a place in the pedagogical sphere in which memorization of rules and constraints is employed as the primary method in understanding preposition use; however, even in this sphere it offers little to those who already know that speakers can use the prepositions interchangeably and wish to understand further why speakers alternate and for what purpose. It is worth mentioning that many of the existing studies are prescriptively oriented. As such, it is outside their concern to account for as wide a range of uses as possible; moreover, what are posed as unacceptable uses often turn out to be merely infrequent ones.

An additional issue with current descriptions concerns the selection of data on which generalizations are made. Most studies select either only written data (e.g. Vimala 1984, Datang 1989, Effendi and Aritonang 1993), a combination of written and introspective or elicited data (e.g. Lapoliwa 1992), or data of an unknown source (e.g. Slametmuljana 1957, Ramlan 1980, Chaer 1990). Typically, written data are taken from newspaper reports (to represent non-fiction) or novels and short stories (for fiction).

Some studies specifically state that the criterion for data selection is that it must be in standard, formal Indonesian (see e.g. Effendi and Aritonang 1993:5), a condition satisfied by many texts of these kinds. This criterion brings certain implications. The first is that it creates an assumption that prepositions have an equal status across a range of discourses. That is, it assumes that di, pada or dalam occur in any type of discourse with comparable distribution. Evidence from this study reveals that this is not the case. It will be shown that semantic content as well as pragmatic-related factors all play a role in determining choice. For instance, a speaker may intentionally choose a preposition with general semantic content in order not to be specific even though another preposition may also be available for expressing the message. Alternatively, s/he may avoid using a preposition because it is

Introduction 5

considered unsuitable for the medium through which the message is conveyed. In other words, preposition choice has to do not only with speakers’ knowledge of the semantic content of the prepositions but also with what they perceive as the most effective way of fulfilling their communicative needs. This suggests also that certain prepositions are deemed more appropriate for certain contexts and less for others.

The second implication of selecting data from written sources is closely related to the first, namely that the assumption of the equal status of prepositions across a range of discourses is partly based on how one defines ‘Indonesian’. As a product of the historical development of Indonesian as a national language and its subsequent promotion by the Indonesian government (see Moeliono 1986, Abas 1987), the term bahasa Indonesia ‘Indonesian language’ has long been understood as referring to the standard variety used by educated Indonesians in semiformal to formal contexts. Any variety that deviates from the prescribed variety is considered nonstandard.6 The government push for standardization has also led to the view that a study on Indonesian is by default a study of the standard, formal variety, particularly the written form.7 This then led many studies, either grammar textbooks or linguistic descriptions, to restrict their area of investigation to that variety only, paying little or no attention to the naturally occurring, more informal language such as that used in casual conversation. Dardjowidjojo (1976:4) points out that the concept of ‘standard’ is itself problematic:

The Indonesian language at the moment cannot be said to have achieved a standard by which we can measure deviations as being non-Indonesian. The type of Indonesian a person speaks is influenced by the regional language he speaks, and by the foreign language he happens to know. This brings about diversities of patterns which, in many cases, make the acceptability of a certain form or construction a matter of degree rather than of absoluteness.

His statement remains as true today as it was a quarter of a century ago. Nonetheless, this definitional problem is not always explicitly stated by others. The narrow view of what constitutes Indonesian has resulted in a paucity of studies on informal spoken Indonesian until recently. The situation is gradually changing in recent years with the increased interest in informal Indonesian (e.g. Cumming 2002, Ewing 2005, also see Kaswanti Purwo 1997, Sneddon 2002, Wouk 1998, 1999).8 This recent body of research has helped broaden the view of what constitutes ‘Indonesian’, and it is within this light that the term is understood in this study. With regard to preposition studies, the exclusion of natural spoken discourse means that any generalizations drawn so far by the existing studies can only be claimed to apply to a restricted area of Indonesian language use, namely, the written formal variety.

6 Ewing (2005) uses the term ‘colloquial Indonesian’ to refer to the non-standard variety spoken by

educated Indonesians in inter-ethnic, informal contexts. 7 The term ‘standard’, although largely associated with formal contexts, is not always identical with the

formal variety of Indonesian. The colloquial variety as spoken by the Jakarta middle class can also be considered ‘standard’ for that variety, although it has not undergone the formal process of standardization (Sneddon 2003:11).

8 Other studies, such as Rafferty (1982) and Gil (1994) are focused on dialects of Indonesian, rather than the language identified as the official language of the republic. Wouk (1989, 1999) also refers to the Jakartan variety of Indonesian as a separate dialect. However, the subject of what constitutes separate dialects of Indonesian is complex and will not be dealt with here.

6 Chapter 1

On theoretical grounds, current descriptions are in need of updating to bring them into line with findings from research into adpositions in other languages which show that spatial, abstract, and temporal uses are related. Traugott (1985), for instance, provides ample evidence that, historically, temporal terms are derived from spatial ones. Studies in grammaticalization and spatial cognition also give strong evidence that spatial concepts give rise to abstract ones (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991, Bowden 1991, Dirven 1993, Svorou 1994, Heine 1997, among many others). Studies on the acquisition of spatial concepts provide further strong support in this area (H. Clark 1973, E. Clark 1985, Bavin 1990, 1992). Other studies, particularly in cognitively-oriented approaches (Brugman 1988[1981] and its reanalysis in Lakoff 1987, Lindner 1981, Taylor 1988, 1989, 1993, Schulze 1991, Cuyckens 1993, 1995, Goddard 1999, 2002, Tyler and Evans 2003, among others) demonstrate that the relations between prepositional meanings are systematic rather than arbitrary. In light of these findings, current Indonesian preposition studies need to be re-examined.

1.3 Developing an alternative description

The preceding discussion illustrates the need for an alternative analysis which considers the following. First, prepositional meanings cannot be described in a single general definition intended to delineate one preposition from another. The interchangeability between di, pada and dalam provides an indication that these three prepositions are related in meaning, and hence the description must also reflect that relatedness. Secondly, a detailed description also requires more precise terms that can sufficiently describe the overlapping meanings as well as isolate those which do not overlap. Thirdly, natural spoken discourse is an integral part of Indonesian language use, and considering that prepositions are used as part of communication, both written and spoken data should be taken into account. Against this background, then, the broad aim of the study is to offer an alternative description that addresses the above issues.

The more specific aims are twofold. The first is to present a semantic description which maps out the semantic structure of each of the prepositions. From this description I will examine the extent of the overlap between the three prepositions and determine the extent of their interchangeability. The second aim is to explain, given the semantic overlap, the motivations behind preposition selection.

The central thesis to be developed in the ensuing chapters, then, is that semantic similarity provides speakers with alternatives for describing a similar situation, but preposition selection is often driven by pragmatic and discourse related factors. Pragmatic factors may be concerned, for example, with the degree of precision with which a speaker conveys an intended message. The choice of di in John ada di rumah ‘John is at home’ reflects the unspecific manner with which s/he describes the situation, because the preposition di, like the English ‘at’, does not give specification as to where exactly John is in relation to the house (e.g. he may be outside in the backyard, in the garage, standing by the front fence, or inside the house). This is in contrast with the compound form di dalam ‘inside’, which specifically identifies John as being inside the house. Thus by saying John ada di dalam rumah ‘John is in the house’, the speaker narrows the possibilities of interpretation. The choice of the compound form, therefore, not only suggests to the addressee that John is inside but more importantly, also emphasizes the fact that he is not outside.

Introduction 7

Discourse factors relate to such things as the medium in which a message is conveyed (whether it is spoken or written) and the type of discourse (or genre) in which a preposition is used. For example, a lecture is usually formal in nature, and when there is more than one alternative for referring to the same situation, the choice of preposition would tend to also reflect the formality of that context. Chapter 2 discusses these pragmatic and discourse factors in more detail.

1.4 The data

I have argued that the generalisations drawn from data limited to written expository and fictional texts are unnecessarily limited. The view I adopt therefore is that a variety of data is desirable for a detailed semantic description, and also for examining patterns of preposition use and explaining possible motivations for preposition selection. It is variety in the sense that the texts represent different discourse types (genres) and mediums (spoken and written).

The texts I selected are broadly categorized into three genres, namely, narrative, expository, and procedural. Where possible I included similar texts from different mediums. For example, in the procedural genre there are written recipes and recipes from television cooking shows. Other than having the same topic these collected texts differ in many respects. Firstly, the mediums are clearly different. Secondly, the texts also differ in terms of the degree of preparedness, in that some may be strictly edited or scripted, while others more spontaneous. Thirdly, the texts may differ in the variety of Indonesian being used, some being more colloquial or informal than others. Such a variety is, to some extent, unavoidable, given that the texts are prepared and presented by different speakers.

The corpus consists of texts totalling approximately 60,000 words with an equal amount of spoken and written texts in each genre, the shortest text being of 152 words in length (a procedural text on how to choose eggs), while the longest is 5640 words (a face-to-face lecture on Indonesian contemporary poetry). Within these, 1415 tokens of preposition are found. This corpus provides the quantitative data for the discussion of distribution patterns in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. I should note here that the corpus shows the frequency of occurrences in terms of genre and medium but not the range of possible uses. For this reason I supplement the data where relevant with my own and other native speakers’ judgements about the acceptability of alternations. Additional data also comes from attested utterances by other native speakers.

The description below gives further details of the texts selected.

Narrative: Spoken: casual conversation among friends Written: written personal account (non-fiction), short stories (fiction), excerpts from a novel (fiction)

Expository: Spoken: face-to-face lectures, radio broadcast of lectures (from an open university) Written: various articles and editorials from newspapers and magazines

8 Chapter 1

Procedural: Spoken: segments from television lifestyle shows, television cooking shows, ‘instructional lecture’ (lecture in which the whole time is dedicated to instructing students to follow a particular procedure). Written: recipes, various other instructional texts from magazines, newspapers (e.g. how to sew a dress, how teach a child to ride a bicycle, how to store food in the fridge).

One objection which may be raised against this collection of data is that it is too heterogeneous, and considering that the Indonesian language one speaks is influenced in varying degrees by one’s regional dialect and other factors, as expressed by Dardjowidjojo, quoted earlier in this chapter, one’s investigation should be restricted to a particular sample population in a particular geographical area. However, as pointed out, restricting one’s data to a particular discourse type of a particular medium as is done by previous studies is not useful, particularly in explaining patterns of preposition use and the motivations for preposition selection. Besides, it seems that this kind of objection is never raised when it concerns written data, even though it can also be argued that the writer’s regional linguistic background influences the language s/he uses in writing. In light of these, then, there seems to be little need for an a priori assumption that only generalizations drawn from data of restricted population and geographical location are deemed valid.

Given the variety in the data in terms of genre and medium, it is to be expected that the texts are not uniform with regard to formality. For example, the language used in a casual conversation is generally more informal than a lecture. This may cause concern for some scholars, particularly considering that there are important differences between the grammar and vocabulary of formal and informal Indonesian (see Halim 1981:7, Sneddon 1990, 2001, 2002, Ewing 2005). I am aware that the issue of formal/informal variation is a complex one and that much research remains to be done in this area. Not only is the distinction between formal and informal Indonesian a matter of degree, but even within the variety broadly identified as informal Indonesian much variation is found (Sneddon 2002:131).

Clearly, the issue of variation requires a treatment beyond what can be offered in this study. For the present purposes, I consider the variety in the data to be essential, for it provides one avenue for showing non-semantic contrasts between di, pada and dalam. Thus when I discuss distribution patterns in the ensuing chapters, the conclusions pertain only to distributional differences between the genres and mediums (spoken or written). No references will be made to dialect variation. In addition, although I use the terms ‘formal’, ‘informal’, and ‘colloquial’ to compare some instances of use of the prepositions, no claim shall be made about the systematic nature of the treatment.

Another possible objection against the collection of data is about the role of medium. There is an argument that text comparison from different mediums must be conducted on parallel texts (see Akinnaso 1982, Macaulay 1990). ‘Parallel’ is taken to mean that the texts must be produced by the same person, exhibit the same degree of planning, formality, and interactiveness (that is, both must either be monologue or dialogue), and are of the same genre.9 While this kind of argument may sound reasonable—particularly when frequency is used as the primary tool for analysis—it has been criticised on several

9 Hartmann (1996:948) uses the term ‘parallel texts’ in a cross-linguistic sense to refer to ‘examples of

discourse from corresponding genres of a pair (any pair) of languages’.

Introduction 9

grounds. Fox (1987:138) for example, points out that the approach has three major drawbacks. First, texts from naturally occurring discourse differ in more ways than the mediums through which they are expressed, hence an insistence on parallelism is deemed unuseful. Second, parallelism assumes that texts are reducible to a set of controllable variables, hence oversimplifying the complex nature of text production and compre-hension. Third, the parallel approach suggests that, rather than being interested in describing differences between texts, one wants to explain differences between the two mediums using controlled variables.

On the practical level, parallel texts are often difficult to find. Take a cooking show on television for instance. While such a show may be planned in terms of content and time management, there is always a certain degree of spontaneity. A written transcript of the show is obviously different in format from standard written recipes. Even in shows where the recipes are available in printed form, they may not be produced (or written) by the same person who delivers them on television, and they therefore fail to meet one of the requirements for a parallel study. Another example is casual conversations, which are, by their very nature, spoken, and the only way we can find a parallel is by transcribing them. Comparing the two versions would therefore be a useless exercise since they are virtually identical. For these reasons, the parallel approach is not adopted in this study.

1.5 Closing remarks

Studies on the semantics of prepositions in recent years have focused primarily on the polysemy question, i.e. whether a preposition only has one general meaning or several related meanings, and the problem of how to test these meanings. Many linguists, particularly cognitive linguists mentioned earlier, have shown that prepositions are polysemous and that meanings are systematically rather than arbitrarily related. They also do not have the same status, that is, some are more central than others. A number of methodologies have been proposed in this connection; the network model (Langacker 1987, 1991, cf. Tyler and Evans 2003), the radial network model (Lakoff 1987), prototype analysis (Cuyckens 1993, 1995), and psycholinguistic experiment (Sandra and Rice 1995) are some examples. In spite of their insights, these studies have paid very little attention to the pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of preposition use. This study is intended to be a contribution towards the existing body of research by showing that pragmatic, sociolinguistic and historical factors are significant in contributing to preposition use.

With regard to language specific scope, as indicated above, this study is intended to fill a gap in the current studies of Indonesian prepositions by providing a descriptive account of prepositional meanings that reflects more closely the range of actual uses by speakers in spoken and written discourses. It also aims to address the issue of preposition alternation, which has received little attention in previous studies.

The chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2 gives an outline of the theoretical framework. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 present an analysis of di, pada and dalam respectively. The inter-relations between semantic structure, pragmatic enrichment, and sociolinguistic and historical aspects of preposition use are drawn together in the Conclusion in Chapter 6.

10

2 Meaning, inference and discourse

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the theoretical approach adopted for the analysis of di, pada and dalam. As argued in the previous chapter, preposition use is determined by several interrelated factors, namely semantic, pragmatic and discourse. In §2.2, I discuss the approach to semantics adopted in the present work. Semantic information reveals what meanings are expressed by each preposition and which of these meanings overlap with the meanings of other prepositions. It is argued that meaning overlaps enable speakers to alternate between the prepositions, but the interpretation of these prepositions is also contingent upon pragmatically related factors concerned with a speaker’s communicative intent. Moreover, preposition selection is also, in part, pragmatically motivated by such factors as specificity and stylistics. Specificity relates to the amount of detail or explicitness with which one expresses a message. The three prepositions provides speakers with alternatives from which to choose for referring to locations. Stylistics, as the term is used in this study, refers specifically to the alternating use of prepositions for the same situation, for no other apparent purpose than to avoid monotony. These two factors are discussed in §2.3 in relation to the theory of ‘presumptive meanings’ (Levinson 1999). Section 2.4 examines two discourse-related factors which also affect preposition selection, namely, genre and medium. Genre is a categorization of discourse broadly based on the speaker’s communicative intent. Medium refers to the means or mode through which a message is conveyed, namely, speech and writing. Both of these factors affect not only which preposition is chosen, but also to what extent it is preferred to the others.

2.2 Meaning as ‘rules of use’

The conception of meaning adopted in this study is drawn primarily from the work of Rudi Keller (1998) on the evolution of linguistic signs.1 According to Keller, the meanings of a word are equivalent to how the word is normatively used by speakers; in other words, meanings are ‘rules of use’. For example, speakers of English use the word ‘nag’ normally

1 Keller’s theory is based on the interpretation of the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is important to note,

however, that even though the notion of meaning as ‘rules of use’ is based on Wittgenstein, (which, according to Keller, is often mistakenly referred to as the theory of ‘meaning as use’), Keller’s work (1998:47-53) is focused not only on this conception of meaning, but more generally on the evolution of linguistic signs, and it offers a synthesis of various approaches to sign meaning.

Meaning, inference and discourse 11

as a derogatory term for a horse, thus to know the meaning of ‘nag’ is to know not only that it is used to refer to a horse but also that the manner of referring is deprecatory. Similarly in Indonesian, the first person pronoun gue is normatively used to refer to oneself in colloquial contexts, and therefore to know the meaning of this word is to know that it is not appropriate for speaking to an older person or a stranger. Likewise, to know the meaning(s) of the preposition di is to know that it is used as a general locative word to refer to a spatial location, that it can also be used to refer to time, and so on. These meanings are rules that provide the basis for speakers to be able to interpret numerous instances of use in different situational and linguistic contexts.

Rules of use are a product of convention (in the sense of David Lewis 1969:78), and as such, they are also subject to historical change. They are perpetuated, maintained, and modified by the speakers to suit their communicative endeavours. Rules may arise or change as an unconscious result of fulfilling expressive needs (Keller 1994). Rules are thus ‘embodied’, not only in the sense that they are grounded in humans’ bodily experience (Johnson 1987), but more generally, that they do not exist independently of the speakers. Language rules, therefore, are not like game rules where strict adherence is imperative. Comparing rules in chess and language rules, Keller writes:

It is somewhat different with rules of a language. They do not apply strictly, they are not codified, they do not apply for all “players” in the same way, and many of them are subject to permanent historic change. Thus it is misleading, in a way, to say that there are rules of use for words like tea and but – rules that you and I both know. The rules do not exist outside and independently of those who follow them. For those who follow them are also the ones who produce, perpetuate and sometimes change them, through use or partial violation. (Incidentally, though, rules do not necessarily have to be broken in order to change. It suffices when, in the course of time, peripheral uses become central.) (1998:116; italics in the original)

In this study I use the term ‘meaning’ or ‘use’ to refer to conventional or established meanings, meanings which are part of a word’s semantic content, and are not attached to particular occurrences of the prepositions. I refer to the latter as either ‘instances of use’ or ‘occurrences’.

In Keller’s approach, ‘meaning’ is differentiated from ‘sense’ in that the latter refers to a pragmatically enriched interpretation of the speaker’s intent, which is described by Keller as follows.

The rules of use, the mutual knowledge of the conditions in which, and the purpose of which, the symbol is usable, is perceptible. The nonobvious is the intention of the speaker. The goal of the interpreter is to figure out that intention; the means to do so is the inference made on the basis of knowledge about the rules of use of the employed signs. If everything goes as planned, what the addressee understands is just what the speaker means. I will call what the speaker means the sense of the utterance (italic in original). Thus I will call the sense of an utterance that which interpreters come to recognize when they have reached their interpretative goal. By way of sign meaning, the interpreter tries to decipher the sense of the use of those signs. The object of interpretation is the uttered sentence with its meaning; the goal of interpretation is the sense of the utterance. (Keller 1998:113)

‘Sense’ in Keller’s term, then, is the interpretation which is selected by the addressee from a set of possible interpretations of the use of a word, which best matches the speaker’s communicative intent. The addressee is able to arrive at the correct interpretation because of her/his knowledge of the word’s meanings and the situational context in which the word

12 Chapter 2

is used. In other words, the successful recovery of the speaker’s intent is contingent upon the addressee’s knowledge of the word’s meanings, her/his general knowledge, and knowledge of the situational context.

Thus the interpretation of the use of a symbol is not the attempt to find out the meaning of the symbol; rather, it is to figure out the sense of the occurrence of this symbol on the basis of knowledge of its meaning. If I do not know the meaning of the symbol, that is, if I do not know to what end it is normally and normatively used, I will not be able to figure out to what end you use it in a particular utterance. (1998:113–114)

‘Sense’, then, is a context-dependent pragmatic inference, or utterance meaning, which, unlike ‘meaning’, can be cancelled (Levinson 1983:114) and varies according to the contextual situation, and when a sense recurs frequently enough, the likelihood is that it turns into a rule-based inference or meaning. That is, it becomes lexicalized.

Keller’s use of the term ‘sense’, though, is potentially confusing, given that ‘sense’ is widely used in semantics to talk about established meaning relations (e.g. the senses of a polysemous word). To avoid this confusion, I shall retain the term ‘meaning’ and ‘use’ for conventionalized semantic meaning and refer to pragmatically enriched, utterance meaning as ‘interpretation’, ‘inference’ or ‘reading’. The difference between former and latter can be illustrated as follows. The preposition di is a general locative preposition with general semantic content that does not specify the configuration of the entities mentioned in a prepositional relation. In its spatial use, it can refer to the interior region of a three dimensional object, a surface, or location thought of unidimensionally (as a point), but these are interpretations that emerge from the use of di in different situational contexts, and not the semantic meanings of di. Thus if someone utters Bukunya di tas ‘The book is in/on the bag’, and we do not have further detail about the situation, but we have our encyclopaedic knowledge about the function of a bag and also about the stereotypical possibilities of how a book might be positioned with relation to a bag, we can interpret the utterance as ‘the book is inside the bag’. However, di itself does not specify this position. Imagine a situation in which someone utters the above sentence to tell another person to get the book in another room. When the person gets to the other room finds that there is a book lying on top of the bag and there is also one inside it. Because the use of di does not tell her/him which one is the correct location, s/he then decides to fetch the book that is lying on the bag. This interpretation may prove wrong if the person wanting the book in fact wants the book that is inside the bag. Thus the other person’s interpretation of di can easily be cancelled in that particular context if the speaker reveals otherwise.

Compare the pragmatic interpretations (Keller’s ‘senses’) of di with its use in (1a). Here di is used to refer to an abstract location and has a distinct meaning from the previous example. The spatial and abstract meanings cannot be coordinated without resulting in a zeugma, as shown in (1b). The coordination of the ‘on’ and ‘inside’ readings in (1c), however, does not produce a zeugmatic effect, which indicates the lack of specification in the spatial meaning.

(1) a. Buku-buku itu sudah lama ada di pikiran saya. book-RDP that PERF long exist LOC thought 1Sg ‘Those books have long been on my mind.’

b. *Buku-buku itu sudah lama ada di meja dan pikiran saya. ‘*The books have long been on the table and my mind.’


c. Buku-buku itu sudah lama ada di meja dan lemari. ‘The books have long been on the table and (in) the cupboard.’

These examples illustrate the distinction between lexicalized polysemy—that is, the different, established lexical senses or meanings of a preposition—and context-dependent, pragmatically derived interpretations (cf. Taylor 1993).

2.2.1 The question of polysemy

Semantic analyses of prepositional meanings, broadly speaking, are studies that examine the relation between a locating entity and another entity that serves as its reference point. The locating entity, which is often construed as a smaller and mobile entity is usually located with respect to something that is construed as larger and fixed, although not always (see Talmy 1983). Following Langacker (1987), I use the terms ‘Trajector’ and ‘Landmark’ for the locating entity and the reference point, respectively.

A central concern in such studies (and indeed, in studies of lexical meanings in general) is how to determine whether the preposition associated with the Trajector-Landmark relations has one general meaning or several related meanings. If it has multiple meanings, how many meanings should be postulated. Basically, the first of these questions is a question of monosemy versus polysemy, while the second related question is concerned with how fine-grained one’s description should be. In other words, the issue is how many distinguished established meanings can be claimed to be represented in the mental lexicon (cf. Behrens 2000).

In the last two decades or so, many semantic analyses of prepositional polysemy have gravitated towards cognitively-oriented, detailed specification of prepositional meanings.2 An early study is Lakoff’s (1987) analysis of the English preposition/particle ‘over’, which is a reworking of Brugman (1988[1981]), and presents meanings as a radial category of related senses. Briefly, the approach shows that various meanings of ‘over’ form a radially structured category, with central senses and non-central senses, all being related by virtue of image-schema transformations and metaphors.

Lakoff’s study has received a lot of criticism as well as inviting a number of reanalyses of ‘over’ (see e.g. Dewell 1994, Kreitzer 1997). It has also spurred studies on equivalent items in other languages (e.g. Taylor 1988 on su and sopra, Geeraerts 1992 on Dutch over) and the application of the radial model to other prepositions (e.g. Delbecque 1995). The criticisms against Lakoff’s study generally concern the validity of positing many distinct meanings (twenty two senses, in Lakoff’s case), for example, Vandeloise (1990), Kreitzer (1997), and Tyler and Evans (2003), who raise the point that the analysis is overly specific and that the extent of the proliferation of senses may not be necessary. Others, such as Sandra and Rice (1995:90–93) and Enfield (2000:19–20) state that, at the level of examples, the Lakoffian-style of analysis fails to take care of certain cases which may be peripheral but are nonetheless important if the model is claimed to represent the full range of uses. Indeed, according to Sandra and Rice, this failure is indicative of a more

2 They by no means represent the only cognitively-oriented approach to prepositional analyses. For other

approaches see for example Zelinsky-Wibbelt (1993), Jackendoff (1983, 1990), Wierzbicka (1996), Goddard (2002).

14 Chapter 2

substantial weakness in the analysis, which is the lack of methodology for showing that the meanings can be claimed to have psychological reality.

Other analyses of prepositional polysemy are focused, for instance, on isolating a prototype. In this approach, instances of use which share the most featural characteristics are identified as being prototypical (that is, being the central members of the prototype), while those with the least number of features are less prototypical and are therefore peripheral in status. Cuyckens (1993), in his study on Dutch in, for example, identifies the prototype of in as ‘spatial relations with complete coincidence between x and a three-dimensional bounded, porous medium with high vertical sides’ (1993:67). Other cases of in are related to this prototype through the concept of family resemblance. Even though a prototype analysis can adequately show the conceptual source of a preposition, one question that remains unaddressed is preposition selection. For example, do speakers choose in on the basis of its prototype? If not, what are other factors that motivate the choice? A related question is, if we have two prepositions with closely similar conceptual sources, to what extent do prototypes play a role in determining selection? As suggested by Geeraerts (1988), speakers’ use of a term may not be fully motivated by conceptual factors. Section 2.2.3 discusses this point in more detail.

The monosemist view, like the polysemy view, is by no means homogenous, but in general, the assumption is that various instances of a lexical item should be accounted for by postulating one core meaning that is sufficiently abstract to be able to accommodate the range of instances (e.g. Ruhl 1989, Vandeloise 1991, Allwood 2003, Janssen 2003, Zlatev 2003, cf. Wierzbicka 1996). Specific interpretations arising from a context of use can be drawn by virtue of the native speakers’ linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge. In other words, speakers have the ability and creativity to deduce the meaning of a given instantiation of a lexical item by taking into account their knowledge about conventions in their language and extralinguistic knowledge. To this extent, the monosemist view has an affinity with the approach to meaning as ‘rules of use’. However, on the more essential point, namely concerning the postulation of one single abstract meaning, the monosemist approach (or at least one version of it) is dissonant with the approach taken here, for reasons that will become clear below.

To illustrate, we can take a recent account, described in Allwood (2003, cf. Zlatev 2003) as the ‘meaning potential’ approach, which, like Keller’s approach, is partially based on Wittgenstein’s conception of meaning as use. Under Allwood’s proposal, words are basically assumed to have one meaning with the potential of being able to be interpreted in different ways under different contexts. The term ‘meaning potential’ refers to the abstraction of the instances of a lexical item in various contexts into one meaning. One item is associated with one meaning potential, but different aspects of this meaning potential can be activated in different contexts through a cognitive operation. Thus, context determines or actualizes the meaning potential.

As a case in point, Allwood gives examples from Swedish, as shown in (2a-d).

(2) a. Pelle går ut genom dorren. ‘Pelle walks out through the door.’

b. Pelle går ut med a trevlig flicka. ‘Pelle dates a nice girl.’

c. Pelles prenumeration går ut. ‘Pelle’s subscription expires.’


d. Pelle går ut med ett meddelande om konkurs. ‘Pelle sends out a notice of bankcruptcy.’

According to Allwood’s theory, the phrasal verb går ut ‘walk out’ in all of these cases are derived from the same meaning potential (2003:49). The fact that går ut shifts between ‘walks out’, ‘dates’, ‘expires’ and ‘sends out’ is not a reflection of meaning shifts, but rather, is a consequence of the variation in its lexical and grammatical context. However, we may notice that we get a similar reading in English for (2a) and (2b) but not (2c) and (2d), which suggests that we may be dealing here with conventionalized polysemy.

In Allwood’s approach, polysemy is posited if a ‘regular’ variation in meaning is detected—that is, ‘regular’ being determined by postulating a number of abstract relations such as ‘instance-type’ (e.g. ‘a car is coming’ versus ‘Volvo is a car I like’), ‘object-process’ (e.g. ‘bike’ versus ‘to bike’), ‘event-object’ (e.g. ‘during dinner’ versus ‘eat your dinner’), and so on (cf. Nunberg 1979). If the relations cannot be determined, then the meanings are identified as being homonymous (e.g. in ‘bank’ as a financial institution and bank of a river). Where a regular variation is combined with ‘idiosyncratic conventional features’ (2003:59), such as in the case of ‘to book’ (which does not need to involve the object ‘book’ at all), the meaning is stored separately in the lexicon.

Although postulating meanings in terms of abstract relations may be able to address the problem of proliferation of senses in the Lakoffian style of analysis, Allwood’s account of polysemy raises at least three important issues. The first issue relates to the validity of the relations themselves. One questions, firstly, how many relations should be posited, and to what extent they can be claimed to be cross-linguistically relevant. Secondly, there is the difficulty of categorizing examples into such relations. Take for example, the ‘object-process’ relation. The Swedish examples in (2a-d) alone illustrate that there are too many variations even within one relation to warrant one generalization. To give another illustration, in Indonesian one can say the following for ‘to bike’: bersepeda ‘ride a bike’, sepedaan ‘ride a bike in leisure’ (colloquial), naik sepeda ‘go by bike, ride a bike (literally, ‘mount a bike’)’, pakai sepeda ‘use a bike, ride a bike’. Although all these can be categorized as ‘processes’, we can also argue that in the periphrastic expressions, sepeda is still treated as an object rather than a process, thus the category ‘object-process’ only genuinely applies to the first two examples. The expressions naik sepeda and pakai sepeda can be considered as processes, but not because of their relation to the word sepeda ‘bike’; rather, it is because naik ‘go up, mount’ and pakai ‘use, wear’ are verbs which are themselves polysemous (e.g. naik mobil ‘go by car’, naik gunung ‘climb a mountain’, naik kelas ‘move up to a higher school level’, pakai parfum ‘use/apply a perfume’, pakai sambal ‘with chilli sauce’, pakai kacamata ‘wear glasses’, pakai pos ‘by post’). Additionally, there are many other expressions involving sepeda which are also processes but do not relate to riding, e.g. beli sepeda ‘buy a bike’, dapat sepeda ‘acquire a bike’ (e.g. for one’s birthday), and so on (as there are also in English, as evident in the translation of these expressions). Putting all these terms in one category would be to make a generalization at the expense of a significant meaning loss.

The third issue relates to prepositional meanings in particular, namely how the theory handles synonyms or partial synonyms. If we take it that one lexical item has one meaning potential, then it follows that two different items have two different meaning potentials. Given that a meaning potential is highly abstract, the question, then, is how semantic

16 Chapter 2

overlap can be accounted for. To put the question more clearly, consider the instances of dalam in (3a-d).

(3) a. Perabot dalam rumah. ‘Furniture in the house.’

b. Bola dalam lapangan. ‘The ball in the field.’

c. Ikan dalam air. ‘Fish in the water.’

d. Air dalam bumbu. ‘Liquid in the spices.’

e. Tenggelam dalam pikiran. ‘Deep in thought.’ (lit. ‘Drowned in thought.’)

f. Berpikir dalam-dalam. ‘Think deeply.’

If we follow the theory, we will treat all of these instances of dalam as deriving from the same abstraction, and the fact that it can refer to inside a three-dimensional enclosed space, as in (3a), a planar surface in (3b), the depth of liquid in (3c) and part of the composition of a substance in (3d), an abstract concept in (3e), and manner in (3f), are attributable to variation in context, and all these examples therefore represent contextualized or actualised meanings.

However, dalam in (3a-d) can be substituted for by di, as seen in (4a-d), whereas in those in (3e-f) cannot, as seen in (5a-b).

(4) a. Perabot di rumah.

b. Bola di lapangan.

c. Ikan di air.

d. Air di bumbu.

(5) a. *Tenggelam di pikiran.

b. *Berpikir di-di.

According to the theory, the fact that two lexical items can occur in similar contexts, as in di in (4), indicates that there is an overlap in the meaning potentials of the two items (2003:49-50). That they are not completely synonymous, as in (5), suggests that they are associated with different sets of actualised or contextualized meanings. If we follow this assumption, then, to know the extent of the overlap, what will be required is a detailed description of the contextualized meanings of each item. In the case of polysemy, the description needs to show how the meanings are related.

To that extent, such a description would not be that far different to what is presented in this study. We can say with regard to dalam and di for instance, that dalam in (4d) is related to (5a) and (5b) through a regular activation of what we can call ‘spatial-abstract’ relation, that is, the notion of submersion in liquid is extended to being in a state. The distinction between dalam and di, then, lies in the fact that the actualised meanings of di do not extend to the abstract contexts in (5a) and (5b). If this is the case, then, in effect the


distinction between the prepositions cannot be accounted for at the level of meaning potential, but rather at the level of contextually determined meanings, since the abstraction cannot detail all the contexts where the distinctions are observed. In that respect, then, there does not seem to be much point in alluding to meaning potentials in explaining the partial synonymy.

Meaning potentials, when explicated, are not dissimilar to the broad, brief definitions of prepositions in previous studies such as Ramlan (1980). Di and pada, for instance, are both defined as prepositions denoting a place where something is located. As will be demonstrated in the ensuing chapters, such a definition is not useful in teasing out meaning differences between these prepositions, rather obviously because it fails to exclude other prepositions that are not under consideration. Moreover, not only does the definition apply to di, pada, and dalam, but also compound forms such as di dalam ‘inside’, di atas ‘on top of’, di bawah ‘under’, and so forth.

Meaning potential has an affinity with the conception of meaning I adopt only in the sense that, (a) through context and extralinguistic knowledge, speakers’ meaning can be deduced, and (b) an analysis of polysemy does not have to show a proliferation of senses. The approach I take differs in the following way. Meanings are conventional or rule-based inferences (Keller 1998:239) that enable speakers and their addressees to make sense of contextual variations. They are the departing points for the interpretation of utterances. In the same way that a meaning results from the conventionalization of an inference, new inferences, arising through a recurrent use of a word in a certain context, and through pragmatic rules, also extend the existing meanings, thereby creating polysemy. And although it is true to say that meanings have potentials, one needs to distinguish between two kinds of potential, namely, the potential for a realization in context (contextual variation), and the potential for an inference to be lexicalized (polysemization). Stating that one word has one meaning potential obscures the fact that some meanings are established semantically while some others are not.

The recent study by Tyler and Evans (2003) combines monosemist and polysemist approaches by positing, a single abstraction or ‘proto-scene’, that is, a diagrammatically presented, idealized mental representation of spatial configurations associated with a particular preposition or particle. From this abstraction a range of distinct conventional meanings or senses are assumed to have derived, similar to Langacker’s (1987) schematic network. Similar to the approach I adopt, Tyler and Evans distinguish between pragmatic inferences that are associated with contextual interpretation (‘on-line meaning construction’ in their term) and those which, through recurring use, become lexicalized (a process known as ‘pragmatic strengthening’ (Hopper and Traugott 2003)).

2.2.2 Determining sense distinction

It has been pointed out that there are no satisfactory tests for polysemy (Geeraerts 1993, Tuggy 1993). Geeraerts argues, for example, that the existing tests, (e.g. ‘identity tests’, including crossed interpretation (Cruse 1986:62), ‘zeugma test’, ‘definitional test’3) seem to yield mutually conflicting results. However, as Behrens (2000) points out, such tests are functionally different. That is, identity tests are essentially tests for sentence ambiguity,

3 Geeraerts uses this term to refer to the works of Anna Wierzbicka (1996, among many others).

18 Chapter 2

and they are useful for distinguishing binary relations between senses in a cluster of senses already identified as being related to each other, not for determining whether a lexical item is general or polysemous. In other words, these tests are useful to determine sense relations in an item already identified as being polysemous. The zeugma test, on the other hand, is a more suitable test for lexical ambiguity, that is, to determine whether something is a case of vagueness or polysemy. This study makes use of both types of test.

Additionally, I employ the criteria for sense distinction posited by Tyler and Evans (2003:42–43). The first criterion is that a distinct sense must contain an additional, non-spatial meaning that is not apparent in any other senses or evoke a mental configuration that is different from the basic abstraction or proto-scene. The second criterion is that some instances of the distinct sense must be context independent, that is, they cannot be inferred from another sense or from its context of use. For example, two distinct senses of ‘over’ is observable in the two sets of examples in (6a-b) and (6c-d).

(6) a. The helicopter hovered over the ocean.

b. The hummingbird hovered over the flower.

c. Joan nailed a board over the hole in the ceiling.

d. Joan nailed a board over the hole in the wall.

In (6a) and (6b), ‘over’ suggests a spatial relation along the vertical axis where the Trajector is higher than its Landmark. In (6c), the Trajector-Landmark configuration is suggested as being horizontal, while in (6d), the Trajector and Landmark are vertical with respect to a vantage point. Thus these examples differ from the previous two in terms of the Trajector-Landmark configuration. Moreover, they suggest an additional meaning of covering and obstruction from view that cannot be inferred from (6a) and (6b).

Following Langacker (1987) and Talmy (1988), this study treats prepositions as lexical items that are atemporal, that is, they do not evolve through time, unlike verbs, which typically encode processes (also see Frawley 1992:170–171, Taylor 2002:218, Tyler and Evans 2003:56). Prepositions therefore cannot encode the notion of movement, since movement involves progress through time. Thus in (6a) and (6b) above, the circling movement is suggested by the verb ‘hover’, not by the preposition ‘over’. The preposition in this encodes only the spatial relation along the vertical axis. Similarly, in sentences such as ‘They flew over yesterday’, movement is encoded by the verb ‘fly’, whereas ‘over’ is used to suggest ‘the other end/side’ meaning. Movement can also be inferred from our general knowledge. For example, our knowledge of planes being objects that can fly enables us to infer movement in sentences such as ‘The plane is over the Atlantic right now’ (Tyler and Evans 2003:56). In this sense, then, movement is encoded at the contextual level and is locally inferred—contextual in the sense that it can be deduced from the construction in which the preposition occurs.

2.2.3 Meaning and conceptualization

In recent years the study of prepositional meanings (or more generally, adpositional meanings) has received a great deal of attention, most particularly in cognitive linguistics. In the following I examine one of the principal tenets in this theoretical approach that is often drawn upon in the analysis of prepositions, namely that meaning is equated with conceptualization. I show that, although this notion is important for prepositional analyses,


not all aspects of meaning can be attributed to conceptualization. This simple illustration suggests that factors which are generally associated with the social aspects of language use, such as degrees of formality, medium of discourse, and also the type of discourse (e.g. short story as opposed to spontaneous conversation), also determine what kind of interpretation we give to an utterance. Particularly in the case of preposition alternations, conceptualization cannot always be drawn upon as an adequate explanation. Speakers may alternate simply because they have several prepositions of similar meanings, all of which can be used simultaneously to convey a message in a non-monotonous manner even though the same prepositions may indeed reflect different conceptualizations when used in other contexts.

The view that meaning can be equated with conceptualization is most explicitly stated by Langacker in his work on Cognitive Grammar (1987:5):

The most fundamental issue in linguistic theory is the nature of meaning and how to deal with it. I take it as self-evident that meaning is a cognitive phenomenon and must eventually be analysed as such. Cognitive grammar therefore equates meaning with conceptualization (explicated as cognitive processing).

According to Langacker, because semantics is essentially a study of meaning, the task of linguistic semantics is to describe the thoughts that are associated with linguistic items (1991:2). Thoughts are claimed to be imagistic, therefore to describe these thoughts is tantamount to describing the imagery that resides in the speakers’ minds. The same situation may be described in different ways depending on one’s mental view or ‘construal’ of it. Construal is defined as ‘the relationship between a speaker (or hearer) and a situation that he conceptualises and portrays, involving focal adjustments and imagery’ (Langacker 1987:487–488). Speakers have the capacity to view an objective situation in alternative ways (Langacker 1991:35, also see Talmy 1983), thus when speakers use two different prepositions for the same situation, we have two different construals, and as meaning is about construal, then two construals are essentially the same as two different meanings. As an example, in English one can use either ‘in’ or ‘at’ to talk about the location of a person relative to a supermarket, e.g. ‘June is at/in the supermarket’ but the two prepositions reflect a contrast in construal in that ‘in’ suggests a close-up viewpoint where the speaker is spatially close to June, while ‘at’ suggests a remote viewpoint, that is, the speaker is at a distance away from the supermarket (Herskovits 1986:132). Similarly in Cora, an Uto-Aztecan language spoken in the state of Nayarit, Mexico, the contrastive locative morphemes u versus a—which translate into English as ‘inside’ versus ‘outside’ respectively—can both be applied to the same objective situation; in addition, either one of these morphemes can be used for a seemingly opposite situation (u for ‘outside’ rather than ‘inside’ and conversely, a for ‘inside’ rather than ‘outside’), or both are used for situations which do not seem to have anything to do with the English notions of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ at all (Langacker 1991:33–34). Langacker shows that despite this inconsistency, the distinction between u and a can be sought in part by making a reference to the accessibility/inaccessibility of an entity to the viewer, and also to the viewer’s orientation. The use of u suggests that an entity perceptually accessible to the viewer is ‘inside’ and ‘in front’, while a implies that an entity perceptually inaccessible is ‘outside’ and ‘in back’ of the viewer.

There have been debates within cognitive linguistics itself as to how far the cognitive claim should be taken (see Sandra and Rice 1995, Croft 1998, Sandra 1998), the most

20 Chapter 2

pertinent issue being to what extent linguistic descriptions of meaning can be said to reflect differences in the speakers’ minds. In other words, can linguists claim that the meanings they posit are the same as what are in the speakers’ heads? Do speakers indeed always have different concepts when they use two different terms for the same situation?

If one adopts an extreme view of conceptualization, the answer to this question would seem to be yes. Keller argues, however, that concepts and meanings are not identical even though they are not independent of each other. In other words, how we think about a certain concept is not the same as how we use the word associated with that concept. For example, the concept ‘head’ (which prototypically refers to the human head) has a relatively clear referent despite the fuzziness about where the head stops and the neck starts, but the use of the English word ‘head’ is far more diverse, for it can be used to refer to the whole head or a part of it. In the sentence ‘He hit him on the head’, it refers only to the part of the head which is impacted by the hitting, and similarly, in the expression ‘in my head’ it only refers to the skull, thus other parts of the head such as the face, mouth, or nose are backgrounded (1998:79–82). In short, our concept of head does not map exactly onto the uses of the word ‘head’. A cognitive grammar explanation would state that the two different uses of the word ‘head’ reflect different construals of the same referent (head), while the concept ‘head’ covers the construal of the head as a whole. Levinson (1997, 1999) also points out that meaning cannot simply be equated with conceptualization. In other words, what we say is not always the same as what we think. For instance, an utterance such as ‘It will be ready soon’ can be interpreted in a number of ways. It can be interpreted as ‘the dinner will be served in 5 minutes’ or ‘the dissertation will have been written next year’, and so on, suggesting that how we think about this utterance may not be the same as what it is intended to mean. To successfully interpret it, we rely on our knowledge of linguistic and cultural conventions, of typical situations, and a process of inference he refers to as ‘ampliative inference’ (1999:212), which I describe in the next section.

The idea that what is said is not always the same as what is in the mind has in fact been implied in the cognitive linguistics literature. For example, in his paper ‘How language structures space’, Talmy (1983:269–271) states that lexical items can be either overspecific or underspecific in conveying thought. For example, English lacks a preposition for expressing with precision a spatial configuration consisting simply of a linear path (e.g. a man taking a walk) with respect to a plane (e.g. a prairie). The preposition ‘across’ (e.g. in ‘He walked across the prairie’) is overspecific because this image suggests the existence of two opposite borders and a path that spans in between, which is not what we want to convey. Similarly, ‘along’, ‘over’, and ‘through’ are inadequate since ‘along’ implies a narrow strip as the shape of the plane, ‘over’ suggests an upbulging curvature, and ‘through’, the presence of a medium (e.g. grass) on the plane. Talmy suggests that what English needs in this case is perhaps a new preposition such as ‘aflat’ (e.g. ‘He walked aflat the prairie’) which would more precisely express the intended configuration. The same prepositions can also be underspecific for conveying other mental images. For example, ‘across’ and ‘through’ cannot accurately express the spatial relationship between a man walking and a wheatfield since the former (e.g. ‘He walked across the wheatfield’) fails to express the presence of the medium (i.e. the wheat) atop the plane, while the latter (‘He walked through the wheatfield’) does not precisely capture the image of a bounded plane.


If words and thoughts are not isomorphic, then it means not only that one utterance can be interpreted in a number of ways as Levinson mentions, but also that the same thought can be expressed by two different terms. Consider the Indonesian examples in (7a) and (7b).

(7) a. Buku-nya di tas. book-DEF LOC bag ‘The book is in the bag.’

b. Buku-nya di dalam tas. book-DEF LOC inside bag ‘The book is in the bag.’

As mentioned, di has a general semantic content, therefore its use in (7a) can be interpreted as either that the book is inside the bag or on top of it. However, when it is the former which is intended, it is interchangeable with di dalam in (7b). According to the cognitive view, di and di dalam evoke different aspects of construal even though they refer to the same objective situation. Di reflects the construal of the book being located in an imprecise manner in relation to the bag, whereas di dalam suggests the conceptualization of the book being inside an enclosure.

But is this really what speakers think when they use the two terms alternatively? Is it really the case that the speaker is thinking of an imprecise location when s/he uses di for ‘inside’? Suppose there is only one book, and it is inside the bag, then would it not make sense to say that di conveys the same mental picture as di dalam? The case might be different if, for instance, there are two books, one inside and the other on top; in that respect, then, the use of di dalam would indeed be more precise because it cuts the possibility of the latter reading. The example suggests that the difference between the two forms is not always a matter of construal.

As a further illustration, consider the concurrent use of pada and di in (8a). In this example, both prepositions occur with the same verb hinggap ‘perch’, the same reference object (henceforth, ‘Landmark’) dahan ‘tree branch’, and the same located object (henceforth, Trajector), the bird. Both pada and di suggest a contact relation between the bird and the tree branch. Either of these prepositions can in fact be selected for both sentences without affecting the interpretation, as shown in (8b) and (8c).

(8) a. Se-ekor burung celepuk hinggap tenang pada se-buah dahan one-CLASS bird celepuk perch quietly LOC one-CLASS branch

yang rendah. Mata-nya awas menatap ke permukaan air di REL low eye-3Sg.POSS watchful gaze DIR surface water LOC

kubangan. Bila melihat katak, burung malam itu menukik tanpa mudhole when see frog bird night that dive without

suara, hinggap di dahan lagi dengan korban di mulut-nya. sound perch LOC branch again with victim LOC mouth-3Sg.POSS ‘A celepuk bird perched quietly on a low branch. Its eyes acutely gazed at the

surface of water in the mudhole. Upon seeing a frog, the night bird dived without a sound, perching once again on the branch with the victim in its mouth.’ (Tohari 1988:26–27)

22 Chapter 2

b. Seekor burung celepuk hinggap tenang pada sebuah dahan yang rendah. Matanya awas menatap ke permukaan air di kubangan. Bila melihat katak, burung malam itu menukik tanpa suara, hinggap pada dahan lagi dengan korban di mulutnya.

c. Seekor burung celepuk hinggap tenang di sebuah dahan yang rendah. Matanya awas menatap ke permukaan air di kubangan. Bila melihat katak, burung malam itu menukik tanpa suara, hinggap di dahan lagi dengan korban di mulutnya.

This example (taken from a novel) describes a situation from the point of view of the writer, with no implied viewpoint shift between the first sentence, where pada is used, and second, where di is used. In both instances, the Trajector and Landmark are perceptually accessible to the observer. One might speculate that the alternation perhaps has to do with order of mention in discourse, in that pada may be a preferred preposition for the first mention of the referent, and di for second and subsequent mentions. However, there is no support from examples in other texts to suggest that this may be the case.

Examples such as (7)–(8) suggest that conceptualization is not the sole motivation for preposition selection. The question as to why speakers would use two different prepositions concurrently for describing the same situation when one serves equally well surely cannot be answered by saying that it is always motivated by the desire to convey two different conceptualizations. Other factors such as individual expressive needs need to be taken into account. A speaker may select two different forms simply because using the same form more than once may sound monotonous, and not because s/he intends to convey a conceptual contrast. By alternating, therefore, the speaker exploits similarity in the semantic content of di and pada (both express the notion of direct contact) for communicative purposes.

2.2.4 Non-conceptual aspects of preposition use

It is worth noting that even though the cognitive approach generally puts much emphasis on conceptualization, the idea that the expressive needs of the speaker are factors to be accounted for in a description of meaning has not been dismissed entirely. Geeraerts (1988), in his study of the verbs vernielen and vernietigen in 19th century Dutch, shows that, although a conceptual explanation can sufficiently account for a meaning distinction between terms which appear to be synonymous, the question as to why speakers would have the need for two different terms in the first place, when one term appears to be already sufficient in expressing the intended meaning, cannot be answered purely with a conceptual explanation. Both vernielen and vernietigen refer to the notion of complete destruction or partial damage, but vernielen, the older of the two forms, tends to be used for material contexts (physical destruction) while vernietigen, the extension of vernielen, is predominantly used for abstract objects (annihilation), thus these two verbs have different conceptual centres or prototypes. Geeraerts argues that the emergence of vernietigen, despite the fact that vernielen may technically have been sufficient for expressing both meanings, may be driven by the need for ‘non-conceptual expressivity’, such as ‘to avoid monotony, to create new ways of expressing oneself, to experiment with unexpected innovations as a way of stressing one’s own individuality’ (1988:226). In spite of their significance, however, these factors remain largely unexplored in Geeraerts’s study. Geeraerts admits that, with regard to his 19th century data, it is difficult to determine which form of expressivity is relevant in the uses of the two verbs.


The importance of speakers’ expressive needs in motivating lexical choice has also been pointed out by other linguists. Bolinger (1975:214), among others, states that lexical choice is often driven by the need for precision or contrast. For example, the words ‘apology’ and ‘justification’ may both suggest the idea of an explanation, however, a speaker who is about to say ‘He delivered a lengthy apology’ may change her/his mind and replace ‘apology’ with ‘justification’ to be more precise, since ‘apology’ may be taken to mean ‘excuse’, which is not how it is intended to be taken. Bolinger also mentions another reason why a speaker may use one particular word as opposed to another of similar semantic content (e.g. ‘justification’ instead of ‘apology’ which we saw earlier), that is, to avoid being misunderstood or thought to be deliberately playing with words (making a pun). This is particularly the case if one uses two words of similar or the same sound, e.g. ‘That was a fine fine you had to pay!’, ‘The painter succeeded in painting the pain on her face all too plainly’, or ‘That weakness is one that he does not to my knowledge acknowledge.’ This may explain the choice of pada instead of di in the following, even though di can express the same thing:

(9) … maka di Jakarta di antara orang Betawi keturunan Cina so LOC Jakarta LOC among person Betawi descendant Chinese

ada kebiasaan untuk menusukkan se-butir bawang merah dan exist tradition for stick one-CLASS onion red and

se-butir cabai merah pada tusuk sate one-CLASS chilli red LOC stick satay

‘… so in Jakarta among the Chinese Betawi there is a tradition of running a piece of red onion and a piece of red chilli on a satay stick’ (Danandjaja 1984:143)

The choice of pada, which can actually be substituted for by di, may be triggered by the fact that if di is used, the resulting phrase di tusuk sate ‘on the satay stick’ sounds the same as ditusuk sate ‘be stabbed by a satay’, di- being used, in this case, as a passive prefix to mean ‘so in Jakarta among the Chinese Betawi there is a tradition of running a piece of red onion and a piece of red chilli stabbed by a satay stick’, which, of course, does not make much sense, and is obviously not what is intended. Although this example may be a little exaggerated, considering that addressees are generally able to differentiate between the two forms from the context of utterance, it indicates what might happen in the slight chance that the addressee does not catch the preceding discourse. Quoting Bolinger, Haiman (1985:22) points out that the choice of form is motivated by the speaker’s judgment of such things as ‘what is the central part of the message as against the peripheral part, what our attitudes are to the persons we are speaking to, how we feel about the reliability of our message, and how we situate ourselves in the events we report’. What this suggests is that both conceptual and communicative factors play important roles in the selection.

Given that prepositions constitute part of the language speakers use to talk or write about spatial and abstract concepts, it would make sense that an approach to prepositional analysis includes not only a description of what kinds of images might be in the speakers’ minds, but also what kinds of other strategies might be utilised by speakers to communicate their intent to their addressee. As mentioned, the interpretation of what the speaker’s intent is by the use of prepositions relies not only on the addressee’s knowledge of their rules of use but also her/his ability to draw inferences from the context of the

24 Chapter 2

situation and from encyclopaedic knowledge. The next section describes the framework for explaining such inferences.

2.3 Strategies for deriving inferences

Like lexical items generally, prepositions differ in their amount of semantic information, some being more general than others. But we saw that a general preposition such as di can be used to refer to a location which is specific, such as ‘inside some sort of enclosure’, suggesting that what is said is not exactly the same as what is in the mind of the speaker. The question is how the addressee is able to delimit possible interpretations and arrive at the correct one. In relation to this, Levinson (1999; also see Levinson 1995, 2000) suggests that to facilitate the interpretation of speaker’s utterances, what is required is a system of ‘ampliative inference’, that is, a process that serves as a system of default inferences, which maximizes the semantic content of words such that possibilities for a mismatch between the coding and decoding of messages can be minimized.

According to Levinson, ideally the speaker and addressee should share some heuristics that amplify the words’ semantic content without requiring extensive background knowledge, such that the words can provide clues to their own interpretation. The heuristics he proposes, as described below, are a reworking of Gricean Maxims (1999:213–214).

1. The Q-Principle (from Grice’s First Maxim of Quantity, “Make your contribution as informative as is required”). Heuristic: ‘What is saliently not said, is not the case.’

According to this heuristic, the use of one term from a set of alternative terms within the same semantic domain implicates that another does not apply. For example, in the domain of colour, the utterance ‘The ball is red’ implicates ‘not yellow or blue’; and in the domain of space, ‘The train is near the station’ implicates ‘not at the station’.

2. The I-Principle (‘Informativeness-Principle’, from Grice’s second Maxim of Quantity, “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”) (italics in original). Heuristic: ‘Unmarked, minimal expressions warrant maximal interpretations to the stereotypical extensions.’

A good example of the application of this principle is the spatial use of the English preposition ‘in’. The utterance ‘The coffee is in the cup’ implicates that the liquid, not coffee beans, is wholly contained within the cup, which is the stereotypical situation described by such an utterance, whereas ‘The pencil is in the cup’ implicates that the pencil is partially in but projecting out of the cup.

3. The M-Principle (from Grice’s first and fourth Maxims of Manner, “Avoid obscurity, avoid prolixity”). Heuristic: ‘Marked message indicates marked situation; specifically, if unmarked utterance U I-implicates p, then marked utterance M M-implicates the complement of p.’

If a simple unmarked expression gets a certain implication through the I-principle, that implication is cancelled by the use of a marked, prolix, or unusual expression. In English, the compound preposition ‘on top of’ in ‘The lamp is on top of the desk’ M-implicates


something different from the usual direct contact interpretation suggested by ‘on’. It may suggest an unusual viewing angle, for example. Similarly, di in Ada orang di pintu ‘There is someone at the door’ is stereotypically interpreted as ‘speaker and addressee are inside the house and the person referred to is outside near the door.’ However, the compound form di depan ‘in front of’ in Ada orang di depan pintu ‘There is someone in front of the door’ implicates that the speaker and addressee are both outside, looking at the person facing the door.

The Gricean notion that successful communication requires shared knowledge is also highlighted in many other studies on verbal interaction. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs (1986), for instance, assert that successful communication requires speaker-addressee co-ordination. Similarly, Garrod and Anderson (1987:181–182) state:

To communicate effectively, speaker and listener must co-ordinate their respective use and interpretation of the language, within the context of that particular exchange. They need to establish that they share the same overall conception of what is being discussed and agree upon how each utterance should be interpreted with respect to this conception.

The same view is also expressed in Garrod and Doherty (1994) and Clark (1996). The heuristics proposed by Levinson are particularly useful in spelling out what kind of inference process is involved for ‘coordination’ to be achieved. The theory of presumptive meanings suggests that inferences are made possible by our knowledge of rules of use or meanings (semantic information) and the utilization of the heuristics.

Presumptive meanings are generalized conversational implicatures (Grice 1989:37–40, Levinson 1983:126, 2000), which contrast with particularized conversational implicatures in that they are attached to the conventional meaning of the word or utterance, and not to any particular context. Particularized conversational implicatures, on the other hand, as the name suggests, require particular contexts. The difference is illustrated in Levinson’s (1983:126) examples, shown in (10) and (11) respectively.

(10) a. I walked into a house. b. The house is not my house.

(11) a. The dog is looking very happy. b. Perhaps the dog has eaten the roast beef. c. A: What on earth has happened to the roast beef?

B: The dog is looking very happy. The utterance in (10a) is generally assumed to implicate (10b), thus the implicature is generalized, and is not dependent on any particular speaker uttering it. By contrast, the implicature in (11b) is generated when there is a particular context such as in (11c); thus the implicature is particularized to that context.

The theory of presumptive meanings also provides an alternative explanation of an aspect of language use which is concerned with the level of ‘specificity’ of an expression, which has been explained predominantly with an emphasis on the speaker. Langacker defines ‘specificity’ as ‘the degree of precision and detail with which a situation is characterized. We have the conceptual and linguistic resources to portray a situation in however much rich, fine-grained detail we care to provide, or conversely, to abstract away from specifics and present it at any level of schematicity’ (1993:448, also see 1991:7,

26 Chapter 2

16–17). For example, the sentence in (12a) is more schematic than (12b), (12b) more schematic than (12c), and (12c) more schematic than (12d).

(12) a. That player is tall. b. That defensive player is over 6’ tall. c. That linebacker is about 6’5” tall. d. That middle linebacker is precisely 6’5” tall.

According to Langacker, the degree of specificity with which one conveys a message essentially depends on construal. The same objective situation may be construed either more schematically (i.e. with less amount of detail) or with a higher degree of specificity, and the more elaborate the expression, the higher its specificity and the narrower its range of meaning. This view, though, focuses primarily on the speaker’s mind, and even though her/his construal may indeed motivate the choice of expression, it would be inaccurate to suggest that it is the only reason that underlies it. The addressee, as well as the situational context of the utterance, must surely come into the speaker’s consideration when selecting her/his expression.

Svorou (1994:6–7) distinguishes further between ‘specificity’ and ‘explicitness’. ‘Specificity’ is, to Svorou, ‘the amount of detail with which spatial relations are described’ (e.g. ‘on the door’ is less specific than ‘on the top left corner of the door’), while ‘explicitness’ is a notion which incorporates the relation between the various elements of a communicative situation such as the speaker/writer’s intention, the addressee, and the communicative context. The degree of explicitness of a spatial expression correlates with the degree of specificity of the expression. For instance, the word ‘here’ has a low degree of explicitness since in using it, the speaker does not give an elaboration of where the entity in question is located and assumes the sufficiency of pointing at her/his own position in enabling the addressee to locate the entity. ‘Here’ is also low in the degree of specificity since it does not make any reference to other features of the situation except the speaker’s own physical or psychological vicinity. In other words, the word’s semantic content (i.e. the degree of its specificity) matches the speaker’s manner of expressing her/his message according to her/his intention (i.e. the degree of explicitness). In effect, Svorou’s terms suggest that one’s choice of expression is guided not only by semantic consideration, but also by pragmatic factors which consider the role of the addressee and the context. Nonetheless, how the addressee comes to recognize the speaker’s communicative intent remains unelaborated.

Taylor points out more explicitly that specificity, or in his term, ‘informativity’, concerns not only the semantic aspect of an expression, but also its pragmatic factors. He defines ‘pragmatic’ in Gricean terms as the interpretation of a sentence by the addressee ‘against the assumption that the speaker only provides an amount of information consistent with his communicative intentions’ (1993:169). According to Taylor, the choice of a semantically more specific term as opposed to a more general one is motivated by such things as the desire to focus on certain aspects of the utterance. For example, verbs such as ‘go’ and ‘fly’ both suggest motion, but ‘fly’ is more informative in that it highlights manner of motion, and not, for example, the source or destination. Because of this difference in the degree of semantic content, the interpretation of an utterance such as in (13a) is not the same as in (13b), even though both have a similar prepositional and temporal phrase (from Taylor 1993:169). Thus (13a) gives a durative reading (i.e. that the plane journey crossing the Atlantic lasts for five hours), whereas (13b) suggests a non-


durative reading (that the person is at the destination for five minutes, and not that the activity of going over the street lasts for five minutes).

(13) a. The plane flew over the Atlantic for five hours. b. I went over the street for five minutes.

In selecting the verb ‘fly’ the speaker thus focuses on the Trajector’s manner of motion, while using the verb ‘go’ focuses on a different aspect of the trajectory, namely the destination. Semantically, the utterance ‘The plane flew over the Atlantic’ is ambiguous between a static reading (‘the plane was directly above the ocean’) and a dynamic telic reading (‘the plane crossed the ocean). The addition of the temporal phrase ‘for five hours’ helps to disambiguate this utterance, in that we know from the normal states of affairs that a plane does not stay static above the ocean for five hours, thus the utterance should be interpreted as the latter.4 The readings of the two utterances, Taylor argues, are essentially pragmatic inferences generated by one’s knowledge of what he calls ‘preferred or rejected interpretations’ and the semantic content of the expressions (e.g. verbal and aspectual meanings).

The Gricean heuristics described above can clarify further what is involved in the process; in other words, through the heuristics we can spell out what kind of reasoning goes toward the process of making such inferences. For example, according to the I-Principle, (13a) implicates ‘the process of crossing the Atlantic took five hours’, and M-implicates ‘not statically located vertical to the Atlantic for five hours’. Meanwhile, (13b) I-implicates ‘at the other side of the street for five minutes’, and Q-implicates ‘not crossing the street for five minutes’.

However, the interpretation of preposition use involves a complex set of factors, not all of which can be explained through reference to semantic and pragmatic aspects alone. Consider the examples below.

(14) a. Aku cinta pada-mu. 1Sg love LOC-2Sg ‘I love you.’

b. Aku cinta sama kamu. 1Sg love LOC 2Sg

c. Aku cinta kamu. 1Sg love 2Sg

Both (14a) and (14b) contain a prepositional phrase with two different prepositions, the semantics of which I shall not elaborate here, but both prepositions are used in a directional sense, meaning ‘to, toward’. By contrast, (14c) is a transitive, preposition-less construction. All three examples express the same meaning, but the contexts in which they are likely to be expressed are not the same. Example (14a) is more likely to occur in writing and perhaps in some scripted dialogues such as in films or radio plays which are written in standard formal Indonesian. Meanwhile (14b) and (14c) occur predominantly in informal discourse, either in speech or writing. Love stories written for teenagers, for instance, are more likely to prefer these expressions to that in (14a). This simple 4 It is possible though to get another reading from (13a) that is dynamic but not telic, e.g. ‘the plane circled

over the Atlantic for five hours, then crashed into the ocean’.

28 Chapter 2

illustration suggests that factors generally associated with the sociolinguistic and discourse aspects of language use, such as degrees of formality, medium of discourse and also the type of discourse (e.g. short story as opposed to spontaneous conversation), also determine what kind of interpretation we give to an utterance.

We might account for the difference in the three expressions in terms of the Manner maxim, as explicated in the M-Principle (a marked expression indicates a marked situation). However, in this case it is not clear which of the three expressions is the unmarked or marked. If we take (14c) to be the minimal, unmarked one, then we would want to say that the unmarked expression also encodes informality. But this is true only if we contrast it with (14a), which is marked for formality. However, that still does not solve the problem with (14b), which, like (14c), also implies informality. An alternative is to attribute the difference in terms of the role of medium and genre, to which I turn next.

2.4 Medium, genre, and formality

We have briefly seen that preposition use, whether it concerns the selection from a set of alternatives, or the choice of whether to convey a message in a prepositional or preposition-less construction, is partially motivated by how and where the message is expressed, and to whom. As also briefly pointed out by Svorou (1994), these aspects of a communicative context (or in her term, ‘linguistic frame’) also determine how explicit we choose to be. Thus we may express things differently when we narrate events from when we give instructions, answer questions, or contrast locations. Explicitness, according to Svorou, is also dependent on whether the addressee shares the temporal and spatial aspect of the context. According to Svorou, a higher degree of explicitness is called for when the addressee does not share one or both aspects of the context, such as in a telephone conversation where the participants share the temporal but not the spatial aspect, or in written communication where the writer and reader share neither of these aspects. In the following I examine the notions of medium, type of discourse or genre, and formality as correlating factors in determining preposition use.

2.4.1 Differences between spoken and written discourse

Many scholars have shown that spoken language differs from written language in a number of respects. Goody and Watt (1972[1963]) and Goody (1987), in their pioneering study of orality and literacy, suggest that the two mediums of discourse serve different functions. For example, written language enables storage of information and can be transferred into a visual form (e.g. graphs, tables, lists). The transposition of spoken language into a written form allows information to be made more permanent, although it also renders it decontextualized (in the sense that it becomes detached from its producer). Medium difference also manifests in different grammatical structures and lexical selection. In a study on Mohawk literacy, Mithun (1985) observes the effect of the introduction of writing on Mohawk speakers who can speak and write English but are not literate in Mohawk. Mohawk speakers who are literate in English but have only begun to write in Mohawk show a style resembling that of a literate tradition they already know, namely, English. It is only when they become more skilled in Mohawk literacy that they begin to write in a ‘distinct Mohawk style’ with an abundance of noun and verb incorporation, and particles used to foreground or background information. Mithun’s study also reveals that


Mohawk speakers’ developed writing style displays characteristics distinct from spoken Mohawk, e.g. more words are packed into clauses, more clauses into sentences, and the number of particles is reduced (1985:269). Mithun concludes that the distinctions are partly due to the nature of the two mediums. Increased production time in writing allows speakers to construct expressions with elaborate morphological complexity and tighter packaging of information.

Olson (1994) notes that writing and speaking differ in their capacity to convey information. Writing lacks prosodic features of speech, paralinguistic resources (eg. gestures and facial expressions), and shared spatial context that are present in speech, and while these features can be presented in writing (e.g. as punctuation and exclamation marks) they are far more limited in their ability to express communicative intentions. The implication of the loss of such force in writing is that, on the one hand, writers often face problems in ensuring that their authorial intention is conveyed adequately, and on the other, readers face problems of recovery of that intention. Olson concludes that writing and speech are not isomorphic, and that writing cannot be taken as a transcription of speech (1994:89).

Other studies such as Chafe (1982), Akinnaso (1982), Redeker (1984), and Chafe and Tannen (1987)5 demonstrate that speaking is immediate, unplanned, and spontaneous, and as such, it requires the addressee to decode information more or less at the same time as it is being produced. Chafe’s (1982) study of English shows that sentences in spoken English are often incomplete and produced in spurts. Writing, on the other hand, displays, among other things, more sequences of prepositional phrases and more nominalizations than speech as a result of the greater production time. Chafe accounts for the distinctions in terms of two pairs of opposing features, namely, fragmentation versus integration, and involvement versus detachment. Spoken language is more fragmented (e.g. words are often truncated, sentences often intercepted by pauses, and so on) but shows a higher degree of involvement among interlocutors, while written language is more integrated (e.g. having longer sentences) but is more detached in terms of the relation between the writer and the audience.

Similar contentions are expressed in other works such as Halliday (1985), Miller and Weinart (1998), Koshrow (1999), Carter and Cornbleet (2001). These studies generally suggest that comparing mediums is a useful method for examining patterning in the use of linguistic items. This is relevant to the present study for two reasons.

The first reason is that studies on prepositions, either Indonesian prepositions as mentioned earlier, or preposition studies in other languages, generally overlook the role of medium in determining preposition use. Moreover, there have been hardly any attempts to examine preposition use in casual conversation (for an exception, see O’Dowd 1998). Given the evidence for the contrast between the mediums, it would be safe to assume that preposition use is also affected by medium difference.

The second reason is that different mediums have been shown to serve different functions, therefore an examination of preposition use in such mediums may give clues to what kinds of functional differences prepositions serve in discourse and why. Certain prepositions may be preferred for a certain medium because their semantic content may suit the characteristics and requirements of that medium. For example, prepositions with general semantic content could be preferred in casual conversation since this kind of 5 Chafe (1982) uses the term ‘modality’ for medium (also see Redeker 1984 and Ochs 1997:186).

30 Chapter 2

discourse does not always require a high degree of precision. If the addressee does not correctly interpret the speaker’s utterance, clarification can usually be sought either through a request for clarification, or by prosodic, paralinguistic, or other contextual means.

Written discourse, on the other hand, requires its producers to be more explicit and precise to enable readers to interpret their intention, hence prepositions with more specific semantic content are likely to be preferred. To this end, then, we can expect that medium guides preposition selection.

2.4.2 Genre

The term ‘genre’ generally refers to the classification of texts or a typology of discourse. As mentioned in the Introduction, I classify the main data in this study into three genres, namely, narrative, expository, and procedural discourse. This section describes the view of genre followed in this study.

Many definitions of genre have been proposed (see Paltridge 1997), but debates remain as to what features of a text should be regarded as criterial in the classification, e.g. whether structural properties alone are sufficient, or whether other factors such as interactional, socio-cultural and cognitive factors should also be considered. Studies on rhetoric generally describe genre as ‘kinds of discourse’ which can be defined in terms of the speaker’s (and writer’s) intention (see e.g. Brooks and Warren 1970[1949], Kinneavy 1971, Kane 1988). An example is the definition of ‘exposition’ from Brooks and Warren (1970[1949]:56): ‘In the first of these, exposition, the intention is to explain something, for instance, to make some idea clear to the reader, to analyse a character or situation, to define a term, to give directions. The intention, in short, is to inform’.

A more detailed characterization of genre is found in Longacre (1976, 1983). Based on his analysis of monologic discourse, Longacre classifies texts into four genres: narrative, procedural, behavioural, and expository. The genres are then discussed at two structural levels, namely, the level of notional structures, which relates to the overall purpose of the texts, and the level of surface structures, which concerns their linguistic characteristics.

At the level of notional structures, texts are categorized in terms of contingent succession, and agent orientation (cf. Longacre 1976). Contingent succession has to do with the temporal unfolding of events, some or most events being contingent upon previous ones. Agent orientation refers to the role played by the agent(s) in discourse (whether the discourse is focussed on the agent or the action). Thus, a narrative is characterized as having temporal succession and as being agent oriented. Procedural discourse has the feature of contingent succession but is not agent oriented; thus the attention is on how something is done, and not on who does it. Expository discourse is neither agent oriented nor has contingent succession. At the surface structure level, the analysis may involve the identification of pronouns, formulaic expressions, performative verbs (e.g. ‘I recount’, ‘I propose’, ‘I suggest’), and so on.

Of the four genres proposed by Longacre, three are included in this study. Behavioural discourse, which deals primarily with how people did or should behave, and includes exhortation, eulogy and speeches made by political candidates (1983:3), is excluded on the ground that it appears to be closely similar to expository discourse for the following reason. At the level of notional structure, this genre is concerned with the explication of ‘behaviour’, which is an abstract concept, and the contexts of the discourse are primarily


formal, very much like the expository discourse. As such, at the surface structure level, it is doubtful that the selection and frequency of preposition use would be markedly different from expository discourse.

Like text typology in general, Longacre’s description does not consider the significance of medium in affecting the characteristics of texts, particularly at the surface structure level. What he classifies as narrative for instance, is predominantly of the written variety: ‘In the narrative story category, we not only have the fairy tale myth, the short story, the novel and the various varieties of novels such as historical novels, gothic novels, detective mystery stories, etc., we have, in addition, first person’s accounts, newspaper reporting, and historiography, which, as we have said, make pretensions to factuality.’ (1983:9). This definition gives an unbalanced view of narrative, and therefore the analysis of surface structure characteristics will also reflect, necessarily, those in the written medium. As mentioned earlier, studies such as Chafe (1982) provide strong evidence that written discourse displays different characteristics from the spoken. It will also be shown in the ensuing chapters, that in terms of preposition use, a difference in preposition choice and frequency can be attributed, in part, to the difference in medium.

A criticism has also been directed at Longacre’s typology by Biber (1988, 1989) on the grounds that it is based on an a priori identification of functional differences among texts. On this view, Longacre’s account is inadequate in representing text-types because it isolates a functional difference first, and determines shared linguistic features after. Biber suggests that a quantitative approach which focuses on the linguistic features of the texts is also functional but that functional differences should be determined only after the features are examined and the text-types identified, not prior to it (1989:5).

Biber makes a distinction between ‘genres’ and ‘text-types’. Genres, in his view, are best seen in terms of author’s or speaker’s purpose—a view similar to that of Brooks and Warren in rhetoric studies (cf. Longacre’s ‘notional structures’)—whereas text-types refer to text categorizations based on shared linguistic features. He argues that text typologies based on genre distinctions do not adequately reflect underlying text-types. In his study of English texts, texts are grouped into a certain type if they share frequent co-occurrences of syntactic and lexical features. Shared linguistic features, Biber argues, reflect shared functions (1989:5). A group of texts forms a ‘cluster’, and every cluster contains texts that are maximally similar to one another (Biber 1988). Texts that are maximally different are grouped into a different cluster. A genre, he says, does not reflect such linguistic similarities. Thus text-types cut across genre categories. For example, the cluster representing the text-type ‘Intimate interpersonal interaction’ contains two genres, namely, face-to-face conversation and telephone conversation. The latter is distinguished further into three subgenres: telephone conversation between personal friends, between disparates, and between business associates. Such a detailed classification may indeed be useful for identifying a broad range of shared linguistic features, however, for the purposes of this study, a broad classification is preferable given that genre is not the only variable being considered. As will be shown, the selection and interpretation of preposition use relies on the correlation between genre, medium, semantics, and pragmatics. A text typology such as Biber’s would be useful as a further study for examining preposition use in one text-type, focusing on such questions as how shared spatial but not temporal context (e.g. how a face-to-face conversation is different from a telephone conversation) and social distance affects preposition use. In the present study, I touch upon this notion in terms of

32 Chapter 2

‘formality’, which is one of the aspects I associate with genre and medium (as broadly defined). Much more specific data (i.e. confined to one text-type) may be able to reveal to what extent the relationship between speech participants determines preposition selection, but for the present study, such a focus would greatly narrow the scope of the analysis.

In spite of the disagreements, there is an important converging point in the accounts, namely that genre or text boundaries are not always clear-cut. Biber, who accounts for this idea in terms of prototype, shows that some texts are most representative (or prototypical) of the text-type in that they display all the important features of the type, while others display less. Thus, some texts in the same text-type may share features with texts in other text-types. The overlap is also referred to in terms of genre embedding (Longacre 1983, Martin 1992, Ochs 1997). For example, a narrative often contains descriptive parts, a speech may contain some anecdotes (which are a type of narrative), and so on. Brooks and Warren refer to this embedding as ‘a mixture of discourses’. In addition, Longacre also mentions that ‘skewing’ is common; that is, a text representing a notional intent associated with a particular genre may be cast in the form of another genre. For example, a personal account of an apartment fire in Dallas was presented in the form of procedural discourse, e.g. ‘you go to bed, you wake up, you smell smoke’ (1983:11). Similarly, one of the texts used in this study is presented as a lecture (which would generally be categorized as expository discourse) but is in fact a series of instructions for a take-home exam. Brooks and Warren (1970[1949]:57) suggest that in spite of embedding, genre can be determined by identifying what the overall intention of the discourse is. Ochs (1997:192) suggests that we view genre as a ‘perspective’ on a text rather than a ‘kind’ of text. She argues, like Biber, that we should examine texts for their genre properties and look for interconnectedness rather than mapping particular genres onto different texts. Although this is a sound suggestion, it is not the procedure I followed in this study. As mentioned, studies on Indonesian prepositions have relied primarily on written fictional and expository texts. Apart from texts from the spoken medium, what is obviously lacking also is procedural discourse. The variety of data presented in this study is intended to address this imbalance. The following sub-sections provide a description of each of the genres.

2.4.2.1 Narrative discourse

The term ‘narrative’ is often used in a broad sense for a wide range of discourses, ranging from storytelling, reports, news and sport broadcast, to plans and agendas. In its narrow sense, it refers to storytelling, either in spoken or written form (Ochs 1997:189). Narrative in this sense is further distinguished between literary (fictional) and conversational narratives, the former being associated with written narrative and the latter with spoken narrative. However, written narrative is not always fictional (personal accounts are a good example), and similarly, conversational narratives often include parts which are fictional (e.g. a speaker retelling a story from a film or book). This study makes use of both spoken and written fictional and non-fictional narrative. Fictional data is taken from short stories and novel excerpts, while non-fictional ones are from written personal accounts and casual conversation.

Considering that oral and written discourses have been shown to be different in various respects, one can safely assume that similar differences also apply to narratives. One difference, for example, concerns their construction, such as who plays which roles in constructing the narrative. Ochs (1997:200) points out that spoken narrative is often jointly


constructed, that is, both speaker and listener are active participants in the construction. Speakers may initiate the conversation and modify what they say according to the listener’s response, while listeners may interrupt, seek clarification or confirmation, or rectify certain information, thereby negotiating and co-directing the whole narrative. Written narrative, on the other hand, is produced essentially by the author without negotiation with the reader during its construction process. Response to the narrative is typically delayed, that is, after the process is completed and reaches the reader’s end.

Another difference is the type of knowledge shared between discourse participants (speaker-listener/writer-reader). It is generally held that spoken narrative requires a certain amount of shared ‘local’ knowledge in the way that written narrative does not. By ‘local’ I mean the knowledge relevant to the discourse participants and to the narrative event in question. For example, in conversation people usually know each other and therefore can rely on each other to know about their past experiences. Writers, on the other hand, do not usually know their readers and hence cannot rely on the same knowledge. They can and do, however, rely on their readers’ ability to make inferences about causal links of events and general states of affairs.

However, Emmot (1997:6–7) questions this assumption. In her study on written fictional narrative, she argues that writers and readers have a certain amount of shared knowledge, but how the knowledge is acquired is different. In written narrative, the writer supplies relevant important information early in the text (e.g. facts about the characters, such as their profession, age, and relation to other characters in the story) which the reader retains and draws on for the comprehension of subsequent events in the story. Emmot calls this type of knowledge ‘text-specific’ since it is based on the information in a specific text and is drawn on for the interpretation of that text. It can therefore be considered ‘local’ in the sense that it is relevant to that text only. Written non-fictional personal narrative is something in between, in that the nature of its construction is similar to written fiction, where the addressees are not immediately involved, but its structure may be similar to written or spoken narrative in the sense that it usually has a point which is not simply to describe.

As mentioned, studies on Indonesian prepositions have traditionally made use of written fictional narrative as their source of data, with novels and short stories written in standard Indonesian being a popular choice. The selection reflects not only a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a narrative—that is, it should be fictional—but also a reluctance to explore preposition use outside of written discourse.

2.4.2.2 Expository discourse

Exposition is generally defined as a discourse with the primary concern of explicating (ideas or concepts), (Kane 1988:6, Macaulay 1990:80, Martin 1992:563, Payne 1997:361), or giving information (Brooks and Warren 1970[1949]:56, Graesser and Goodman 1985:142). Like other discourse types, ‘sub-purposes’ may also be embedded within the main purpose of exposition. For example, part of it may be aimed at entertaining or persuading the reader/hearer (e.g. sermons). Definitions and analyses are some of the common features of exposition.

Like narrative, expository discourse appears in various forms, ranging from academic essays, newspaper and magazine articles, editorials, technical and other textbooks. Unlike

34 Chapter 2

narratives, however, it is primarily associated with the written genre of the technical, scientific, academic kind (Graesser and Goodman 1985, Macaulay 1990). In fact, Kinneavy calls it ‘reference discourse’ (1971:39). Its spoken counterparts can be found, for example, in persuasive political speeches, sermons6 and lectures. Martin (1992:563) makes a distinction between texts which present one point of view and those with more than one point of view. Expository discourse is categorized into the former. Consequently, conversational texts such as chats do not usually qualify as an exposition as they, more often than not, present more than one point of view. This is not to say, however, that stretches of conversation may not contain parts intended to explain or inform in the way that prototypical expositions do.

Martin (1992:562), developing Longacre’s (1983) categorization, classifies exposition as a genre which is ‘factual’, which is not focused on activity sequences and which generalizes across experience. Macaulay (1990:82) points out, however, that factuality is not only the feature of expository discourse; non-fictional narrative (personal account), for example, is also factual. She suggests that the important feature of expository discourse is its focus on the explication of ideas.

2.4.2.3 Procedural discourse

Procedural discourse refers to a wide range of instructional texts such as recipes, how-to articles, and tips. The data for this study, for example, includes texts on how to teach children to ride a bicycle, what to do to prepare for a take-home exam, how to make business cards using a word processor, and how to care for a sick fish. In contrast to narrative and exposition, which are aimed primarily at entertaining and explicating ideas respectively, the purpose of procedural discourse is primarily to instruct the addressee on how to do something (Mills et al. 1993, 1995). According to Longacre (1983:4), procedural discourse is focussed on the succession of activities rather than on the agent. Procedurals, like the other genres, vary in their style of presentation. Some appear in a less rigid step-by-step manner and are ‘more like narrative’ (Mills et al. 1993, 1995), while some others are more list-like. In addition, they may be presented in a context usually associated with another genre. I mentioned, for example, that the data in this study includes a series of instructions for university students, which is presented as a lecture (in the sense that it was given during the whole of a lecture time).

As I pointed out, procedural is not a type of discourse commonly used as a source of data in Indonesian preposition studies. However, it is precisely because of this, and because of the more important fact that procedural texts differ from narrative and exposition in purpose and focus, that they should be included.

6 As mentioned, Longacre (1983) categorizes sermons and political speeches into hortatory discourse;

however, Payne (1997) includes sermons in the expository.

35

3 Expressing generality and specificity with di

3.1 Introduction

Di is generally referred to as one of the basic Indonesian locative prepositions. It can occur as a simple preposition, as in (1), or with a locational noun such as atas ‘top’ to form a compound preposition, as in (2):

(1) Bapak di ruang tamu. father LOC room guest ‘Father is in the lounge room.’

(2) Tas-mu di atas meja. bag-2Sg.POSS LOC top table ‘Your bag is on top of the table.’

It can also appear with dalam as a compound preposition but in this use is not followed by an overt Landmark. For example:

(3) Mereka ada di dalam. 3Pl be LOC inside ‘They are inside.’

Di can also be followed by the locative pronouns sini ‘here’, situ ‘there’, and sana ‘over there’ to form compounds which can function as either deictic or anaphoric markers:

(4) di sini ‘in here’ di situ ‘in there di sana ‘over there’

It can also co-occur with mana to form the Wh- word di mana ‘where, (in) which’, which is used either as a question word, as in (5), or a relative marker, as in (6).

(5) Di mana ayah-mu? LOC where father-2Sg.POSS ‘Where is your father?’

36 Chapter 3

(6) Itu tempat di mana saya lahir. that place LOC where 1Sg be.born ‘That’s the place where I was born.’1

This chapter is concerned primarily with the use of di as exemplified in (1)–(3).2

Previous studies generally treat this preposition as the basic locative whose meaning is broadly defined as a place where something is located. Although this kind of definition, being broad and brief, may correctly suggest the generality of di, it fails to capture the semantic structure of this preposition. Moreover, it does not distinguish di from the other locatives such as pada and dalam which can also be said to designate a place. The default nature of the locative phrase with di creates specific interpretations, in terms of semantic domain, with implications of the non-choice of the more specific prepositions pada and dalam.

My purpose in this chapter is as follows. Firstly, I will present a description of di in spatial and non-spatial uses. I will argue that di is basically a preposition with general semantic content, thus it does not give specification on the position of a Trajector with reference to its Landmark. Some readings of di may imply specifications of the Trajector-Landmark configuration; however, such readings are essentially generalized implicatures, that is, implicatures that are derived from the meaning of di plus from our knowledge of how things are canonically positioned. Applying the Gricean heuristics proposed in Levinson (1999, 2000), I discuss how these implicatures are arrived at.

Secondly, I shall examine the use of di in compound prepositions, which, some assert, has the function of providing specificity to an utterance. I shall argue that this assumption is only partially correct and that compounds serve several communicative functions, of which providing specificity is one. A more detailed discussion on compound use is given in §3.4.2.

Thirdly, I examine the pattern of use of di in spoken and written discourse in the three genres (narrative, expository, and procedural) to show that, (a) the general semantic content of di lends itself to its being preferred to the other two prepositions, and (b) even though di has extended uses in non-spatial domains, its predominant use is, by far, spatial.

3.2 The semantics and pragmatics of di

The application of the view of meaning as rules of use to the preposition di is best approached by posing the question ‘in Indonesian, what is the preposition di used for?’ That is to say, if I am the speaker, what do I want my addressee to infer by my use of di? And conversely, if I am the addressee, and I hear someone utter something to me using di, what does s/he want me to know as a result of her/his choice of term? I would argue that di is used to convey one general spatial meaning, which I regard as the basic meaning. From this basic meaning are derived three extended meanings with humans, time and abstract concepts as Landmarks.

1 I note that although di mana is often used as a relative marker, this use is not recommended by

grammarians, the reason being that it is a direct translation of the English relative marker ‘where’. A marker considered more appropriate is tempat, literally meaning ‘place, location.’ In (6) however, this marker would be dropped to avoid repetition, thus the preferred version of (6) is Itu tempat saya lahir ‘That’s the place (where) I was born.’

2 Uses exemplified in (4)–(6) are included in the frequency count but are not elaborated further.

Expressing generality and specificity with di 37

3.2.1 Di as a general localizer

As mentioned, in previous studies di is generally defined in broad terms as a preposition denoting the existence of some entity in some place. For example, Slametmuljana (1957:168) and Alieva et al. (1991:258) describe di as denoting keberadaan pada suatu tempat, literally meaning ‘the existence (of some entity) at some place’. Similarly, Ramlan (1980:65) and Chaer (1990:27) state that di indicates tempat berada, literally meaning ‘place of existence’. In a slightly different vein, Sneddon (1996:189) states that di indicates ‘that the action occurs in the place indicated by the following noun’ and gives the following example.

(7) Dia tinggal di kota. 3Sg live LOC city ‘S/he lives in the city.’ (Sneddon 1996:189)

Without any further elaboration or explanation, these broad definitions are in themselves not sufficient for distinguishing di from pada and dalam, which also denote the existence of some entity in some place. And although the broadness of the definitions intuitively captures the generality of di, they fail to indicate what kinds of relational meanings it can or cannot express. Moreover, they only pertain to the basic meaning, thus leaving non-spatial uses unaccounted for.

I shall propose that the basic meaning of di is to tell the addressee that a spatial entity is located in an unspecified manner relative to a spatial Landmark, and that no further specification of the relational configuration is needed. This means that the precise position of the Trajector is not known. Di, in other words, suggests the idea of general localization. ‘Localization’, following Vandeloise (1991:162), is understood in functional terms: ‘the essential function of a localizing preposition is to situate a target whose position is unknown or uncertain by reference to a known landmark’.

The only requirement for the basic meaning of di is that the Trajector must be coincident with its Landmark. The term of ‘coincidence’ has been defined, for example, in terms of two overlapping points in space (Herskovits (1986:128). Thus for a relation to be coincident means that the Trajector must be very close to its Landmark, such that the two are conceptualized as coincident points. For example, the use of English ‘at’ in ‘June is at the supermarket’, June is conceptualized as a point that is coincident with another point, namely the supermarket. The conceptualization of ‘at’ as coincident points means that it cannot be used for a situation where the Landmark is thought of as a container, for example (e.g. ‘*My purse is at my bag’), even though the Trajector is very close its Landmark (cf. H. Clark 1973:40, Quirk et al. 1985:673–674, Dirven 1993:74, Pullum and Huddleston 2002:650). Although the requirement of closeness in Herskovits’s definition is relevant for di, her definition is too restrictive because di does not always suggest the conceptualization of two coincident points. For example, in Teh di cangkir ‘Tea in the cup’, di suggests containment, and the tea is not being construed as a point.

Cuyckens (1993:35) in his analysis of the Dutch preposition in ‘in’ defines ‘coincidence’ more generally as the relation between arguments x and y, in that ‘y constitutes the place where x is located’. This definition suggests a static relation between x and y, and is, in effect, very similar to the broad definitions of di given in previous studies, which, as I mentioned, do not distinguish this preposition from either pada or dalam.

38 Chapter 3

Following the OED, I shall use the term ‘coincidence’ to suggest ‘occupation of the same portion of space’, that is, the Trajector occupies the same portion of space with its Landmark, the notion ‘sameness’ being understood as either physical or mental ‘sameness’. Some examples of spatial coincidence are given in (8)–(10).

(8) Nah, saya ada di kafe-nya sana. PRT 1Sg be LOC cafe-DEF there ‘Well, I was at/in the cafe there.’ (S/N-RETN)

(9) ... ia bertemu dengan Bu Endah di pasar. 3Sg meet with Mrs Endah LOC market ‘... she met Mrs Endah at/in the market.’ (W/N-CALO)

(10) Adi sedang di universitas. Adi IMPERF LOC university ‘Adi is at the university.’

The definition I adopt, although still relatively general, is more relevant for di in that it is able to reflect a relation in which the Trajector and Landmark are very close but are not construed as two overlapping points. For example, in (11) neither the shrub nor the fence can be thought of as points. In this example, the shrub in (11) does not have to be in physical contact with the fence. Moreover, the shrub might be in the form of a small plant or a line of plants growing along the fence. The only requirements are (a) that it be close enough to the fence that it can be perceptually viewed as occupying the same portion of space as the fence and is perceptually associated with it, and (b) that it is smaller than the fence, otherwise it may not be located with reference to it, observing the usual tendency in prepositional relations for the Landmark to be larger than the Trajector.

(11) Tanaman di pagar itu bagus. plant LOC fence that nice ‘That plant/shrub at the fence is nice.’

Imagine also a cardboard mobile in the shape of a kangaroo, hung from the ceiling down to the window such that it is perceptually integrated with the window. Di is also acceptable even though the mobile may not be in physical contact with any part of the window at all but is construed as being within its boundaries defined by its frame.

(12) Gantungan kangaroo-nya di jendela. hanging kangaroo-DEF LOC window ‘The kangaroo hanging is in the window.’

Here the mobile perceptually shares the same two-dimensional space as the window, therefore it is associated with the window rather than with the ceiling, from which it is hung. This spatial instance of di thus suggests that entity X occupies the same two-dimensional, framed portion of space as Y.

3.2.1.1 Contextual interpretations of di

Speakers often use di to produce more specific interpretations than the basic spatial meaning. These interpretations can be inferred through one’s knowledge of the basic meaning and the application of pragmatic principles for amplifying inferences (as described in the previous chapter). To illustrate, if someone utters Disketnya di kotak ‘The


floppy disk is in the box’, the usual interpretation is that the disk is inside a floppy disk box, not on it. This interpretation does not constitute the spatial meaning of di, but rather, is a conventional implicature, that is, a pragmatically generated reading obtained by means of our linguistic knowledge of the basic meaning plus our encyclopaedic knowledge of how things are typically positioned, and also situational contexts. The inference that the disk is inside the box is based on our assumption about a stereotypical situation. Levinson (1999:214) calls this kind of inference the I-Principle, that is, a heuristic that says addressees understand a simple, unmarked expression to be generally indicating a stereotypical situation.

In the following I elaborate on these contextual aspects that are drawn upon in the interpretation of utterances with di, namely, viewpoint, functional interaction, convention-alized expressions, and discourse contexts. I will then (in §3.2.2) explore the range of possible interpretations of di in different instances of use.

3.2.1.1.1 Viewpoint

The notion of ‘viewpoint’ or ‘vantage point’ (Langacker 1987) refers to the physical or mental position from which a certain entity is described. As pointed out by Herskovits, the conceptualization of an entity as a point is triggered by physical distance between the observer and the entity described. For instance, the use of ‘at’ in ‘June is at the supermarket’ suggests a remote viewpoint where the observer is located at a distance from both June and the supermarket. Similarly (13) suggests that the speaker is not in the city of Solo at the time of utterance.

(13) Ani di Solo. Ani LOC Solo ‘Ani is in Solo.’

Physical distance can motivate the conceptualization as a point of a location that is usually thought of as either two-dimensional or three-dimensional. Consider (14). This excerpt is from a personal narrative, showing speaker E recounting her experience of fieldwork in an Indonesian national park where she collected insect specimens for her PhD research. In the previous discourse the speaker mentions that the park ranger accompanied her only from her hut to the river, then left her to continue her walk uphill. In this excerpt she is recalling the ranger saying that he would meet her at the same spot before dark to take her back to her hut. Di sungai ‘at/in/by the river’ when used with a person as the Trajector, generally suggests that the person is in contact with the water. For example, the utterance Anak-anak ada di sungai ‘the children are in the river’ gives the default interpretation of the children either playing or swimming in the river. If the person is not in the water, usually a marked expression such as di dekat ‘near’ or di tepi ‘at the edge of, by the side of’ would be used (e.g. Mereka berdiri di tepi sungai ‘They are standing by the side of the river’. In (14), however, the Landmark di sungai suggests something like ‘the spot by the side of the river where we parted before’.

40 Chapter 3

(14) Waktu itu saya di .. peseni sama .. apa ya kayak time that 1Sg PASS-tell3 by what yes like

penanggungjawab-nya di situ. <Q Nanti kalau bisa person.in.charge-DEF LOC there later if can

jam empat sudah di sungai Q> gitu lho. hour four PERF LOC river like.that EMP ‘That time I was told by, .. what do you call it, like the person in charge there

“If you can, be back at the river by four o’clock,” like that.’ (S/N-ENDA)

The river is in this case construed as a point at which the speaker would meet her ranger. Di does not specify where exactly in relation to the river the speaker had to wait; it is sufficient that she was close enough to it such that she could be identified relative to it.

The occurrence of di in this example reflects the physical and temporal distance between the speaker and the experience. This narrative is about a past experience at a remote location in Indonesia, and the river is one of the important geographical landmarks in the story (the other landmarks being the hut where the speaker slept, and the uphill area where she ventured by herself without the company of the ranger). Thus because di is semantically general, it can be used to convey a spatial configuration which is usually expressed with a compound form.

3.2.1.1.2 Functional interaction and prototypical locational relations

The interpretations of spatial instances of di are partially motivated by our general knowledge of how certain things typically function. For instance, we know that the typical function of wardrobes is for storing clothes. Accordingly, our typical interaction with wardrobes is along this line. Similarly, the typical function of a television is for viewing, and so this is the typical way we interact with it. We can, of course, utilize other parts of it for other things, such as to put a book or some ornaments on its top surface, however these are not illustrative of a television’s inherent function. Our purchase of a television, for instance, is not based on these practical uses. I refer to the interaction of a Trajector and the most functional part of a Landmark as ‘functional interaction’ (cf. Herskovits 1986:135–136).

The appeal to function in the definition of objects is not new. Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976), for example, recognize that definitions cannot be based on perception alone without a reference to an object’s function. A description of ‘table’ for instance, cannot be 3 Di- is the only prefix glossed as a separate morpheme in this thesis. This is to distinguish di- as a prefix

and the preposition di which, prior to the introduction of the Reformed Spelling (Ejaan Yang Disempurnakan) in 1972 (and also in the earlier van Ophuijsen spelling system, officially introduced in 1902, and the Soewandi system, introduced in 1947), were not differentiated orthographically. Other prefixes such as meN- and ter-, and transitive suffixes such as -kan and -i, are glossed according to the meaning of the entire verbal derivation. For example, menggoreng, where the prefix meN- is attached to the verbal base goreng ‘fry’ is glossed as ‘fry’, and not meN-fry. There have been several hypotheses regarding the origin of the prefix di-. Most recently, Adelaar (2005) makes an interesting proposal that the Malay prefix di- is derived from the preposition di which at some stage had a wider range of functions, among which is as an agent preposition. A shift from an agent preposition to a passive prefix is evidenced in several varieties of Malay, particularly Kendayan. In this language the agent precedes the verbal base and is marked by the preposition di-; when there is no agent, the verbal base is marked by the prefix di- (2005:129). For a counter argument see Van den Berg (2004).


made purely by referring to its orientation—by which they mean ‘the process of integrating a variety of specific views of an object into a general percept independent of angle of regard’ (1976:228), such as:

TABLE (x): (i) x is an object (ii) x is moveable, connected, and rigid (iii) x has a flat surface (iv) There are parts of x that extend out from the side opposite to that flat surface.

Since this description mentions nothing about how people use a table; we have no way of knowing, for instance, that the flat surface is horizontal, or that the surface has to be firm to enable people to put things on it. Miller and Johnson-Laird propose that a functional description along the lines of ‘A table is used for working or eating or playing games; the top used to support various smaller objects required in the course of those activities’ allows us to predict that a table has an intrinsic worktop (1976:229). This, in turn, helps us fill in the required information missing in the previous description. Obviously, we cannot appeal to function to describe all objects, however, as Miller and Johnson-Laird argue, most human artifacts are essentially functional, a view shared by Wierzbicka (e.g. 1984, 1985, 1996). To Miller and Johnson-Laird therefore, a reference to function is more important than form when defining such objects.

Di often gets a default interpretation that makes reference to the most functional part of the object that constitutes the Landmark. For example, when the Landmark is a table and the Trajector is an object which can be located with reference to it, and the interaction between the two reflects the primary function of tables, then the usual interpretation is that the Trajector must be on the most functional part of the Landmark, namely, its flat upper surface (or in Miller and Johnson-Laird’s term, its ‘worktop’), unless there is further information which cancels this reading. Notice for example in (15) below, where a student (S) wants to confirm with her lecturer (M) that she was to submit her assignment to her in the department. Her lecturer tells her to put it on the table if she is not in her office. Thus in this instance, di suggests the stereotypical arrangement between the object that serves as the Trajector (the assignment) and the most functional part of a table.

(15) S: Di jurusan Bu ya? LOC department Miss yes

M: Iya di jurusan aja. ... Di jurusan di-letakkan di yes LOC department just LOC department PASS-put LOC

meja saya saja. .. Iya. table 1Sg-POSS just yes ‘Is it in the department Miss? Yes in the department. ... In the department

just put it on my table. .. Alright.’ (S/E-DIAL)

Another example is (16). An object such as a flower pot is usually identified as having a interior region as its most functional part and that its typical function is for growing plants. Other uses such as for baking bread (e.g. the case with terracotta pots) are then viewed as secondary to it. Notice here that when the prepositional relation suggests the primary function of pots, di refers to the Landmark’s interior region.

42 Chapter 3

(16) Tanaman anggrek di-letakkan di pot bersih berukuran sedang. plant orchid PASS-put LOC pot clean be.of.size medium Lit. ‘The orchid is placed in a clean, medium-sized pot.’ ‘Put the orchid in a clean, medium-sized pot.’ (W/P-ANTA)

One might like to stretch one’s imagination and argue that di here may mean ‘on the bottom surface of a clean upside down pot’; however, that would be to assume that the speaker is not being cooperative. Why would someone, for instance, under general circumstances, put an unpotted orchid plant on top of an upside down pot specified as medium in size? However, if that is indeed the intended interpretation, we expect that the discourse context would specify. In the absence of such specification, we can assume that the stereotypical configuration obtains, which is the assumption spelt out by the I-Principle of the heuristics.

To a degree, what can be identified as a function of an object is culturally sanctioned. For example, baking bread in a terracotta pot is uncommon in Indonesia, hence it would be awkward for instance, to say the following:

(17) ?Panggang-lah roti di sebuah pot tanah liat. bake-EMP bread LOC CLASS pot soil clayey ‘Bake the bread in a terracotta pot.’

It would be more felicitous in this case to select the compound form di dalam ‘inside’, which highlights the interior region of the pot. The compound suggests, according to the M-Principle, a marked situation, namely, that the Landmark is an unusual choice for the purpose at hand.

(18) Panggang-lah roti di dalam sebuah pot tanah liat. bake-EMP bread LOC inside CLASS pot soil clay ‘Bake the bread in a terracotta pot.’

Baking bread in a terracotta pot is perhaps also a novel thing for English-speakers, however, to express the same notion, English forces us to choose ‘in’ which encodes more specification than di in that ‘in’ already indicates that the Landmark is some sort of container. Using the compound form ‘inside’ would in fact render the utterance awkward since it would suggest an enclosure, which is not the intended meaning here. Compare (19a) and (19b) below.

(19) a. Bake the bread in a terracotta pot.

b. *Bake the bread inside a terracotta pot.

Knowledge of the typical function of objects also enables speakers/writers to do away with not overtly mentioning the Landmark. Consider the example we saw in (3), repeated in (20).

(20) Mereka ada di dalam. 3Pl be LOC inside ‘They are inside.’

In the absence of further context, dalam in this sentence I-implicates ‘inside the house, building, or any other type of dwelling’, which is based on the notion that the interior of such places is the most functional part for people to live or work in. If the speaker and addressee are also in the house (e.g. in the lounge room), di dalam can be interpreted as


‘further inside the house, imperceptible to the speech participants’. Although di does not specify where exactly inside the house the Trajector is, it would be unlikely, in the absence of a situation context which specifies otherwise, that di dalam in (20) would be interpreted as inside a car or any other means of transport since these objects are usually associated with the transportation of people from one place to another, and while it has an interior region whose function is to accommodate the passengers, this function is only secondary to and is a consequence of the primary function. Thus in this case also, the I-Principle obtains; that is, the ‘inside’ reading reflects the stereotypical situation between people and buildings.

It is worthwhile to point out in the case of di, default interpretations obtain not purely from our knowledge of the Landmark’s inherent function, but also as importantly, from the nature of the Trajector which interacts with it, such as its size and shape. The occurrence of a Trajector not commonly associated with the Landmark’s function creates ambiguity. For instance, (21) is ambiguous between ‘posted on the exterior surface of the kitchen cupboard’s door’ and ‘lying on a shelf inside the kitchen cupboard’.

(21) Foto-nya di lemari makan. photo-DEF LOC cupboard eat ‘The photo is on/in the food cupboard.’

Compare with (22) where the Trajector evokes a functional interaction between a soy sauce bottle and a kitchen cupboard.

(22) Kecap-nya di lemari makan soy.sauce-DEF LOC cupboard eat ‘The soy sauce is in the food cupboard.’

The notion of ‘functional interaction’ can also be extended to include the idea of typical associations between people and places. It is common for places to be associated with the typical activities conducted in them. Thus a prepositional phrase containing di such as di universitas ‘at/in the university’ may refer to a place, or to academically-oriented activities such as teaching and learning, which are activities typically associated with universities. The example in (23) is uttered by a lecturer who was recalling his undergraduate years at the same university he now teaches. Di UI ‘at UI’ in this case refers to his place of study, and not place of work. Thus the situational context here restricts the interpretation.

(23) Itu terasa betul tahun tujuhpuluhan ketika e= .. saya masuk di.. that be.felt really year seventies when er= 1Sg enter LOC

UI itu masih- UI that still ‘That could really be felt during the seventies when er= .. I started at UI that

was still-’ (S/E-PMKI)

Schegloff (1972:98) observes that because of the typical association between places and occupation, a speaker can use a locative phrase to describe her/his occupation. Notice his example in (24), where the phrase ‘inna driving school’ is given by speaker B as an answer to speaker A’s question about her/his occupation, which implicates that s/he is a driving instructor.

44 Chapter 3

(24) A: You uh, wha ‘dijuh do, fer a living? B: Ehm, I work inna driving school.

Locative expressions, moreover, can suggest further inferences than simply associating places with typical activities. For example, they may be utilized by the speaker to draw the addressee’s attention to the social perception associated with a Landmark, such as prestige (Herskovits 1986:31). Consider (25), in which the locative phrase di DPR refers not only to the building where the parliament is housed, but also implies that the Trajector is a member of parliament and hence has a high social standing.

(25) Ibu-nya di DPR. mother-3Sg.POSS LOC DPR ‘His/her mother is at/with the DPR (Parliament).’

This interpretation can be cancelled, however. For example, one can point out that the person works at the DPR, but not as a politician.

(26) Ibu-nya di DPR, tapi cuma sebagai pembantu saja. mother-3Sg.POSS LOC DPR but only as servant only ‘His/her mother is at/with the DPR, but only as a servant.’

In fact, cancellation of an implication like this often becomes a rich source of comedy material. It is not uncommon in an Indonesian comedy show to see a character from a low social strata telling his/her addressee where s/he lives or works by mentioning a nearby or adjacent Landmark, which is usually a known, large and prestigious place (e.g. multi-storey building). The idea here is to be purposely vague and to create a false assumption about his/her actual home or workplace. It is then either through the addressee’s further probing and request for more specification that the real (more accurate) location is usually revealed. This ‘game’ of location identification is possible with di because of the generality of this preposition.

3.2.1.1.3 Conventionalized expressions

Conventionalized expressions are fixed expressions that suggest certain meanings. When di is selected as part of such expressions therefore, it gets a default interpretation and cannot be substituted for by another preposition. Some examples are the temporal phrase di kemudian hari ‘in the future’, the proverb jauh di mata dekat di hati (literally, ‘far from the eyes close to the heart’) ‘far away but not forgotten’.

According to Talmy (1983:261), the selection of prepositions such as these may be a product of a cultural or language-specific or ‘linguo-cultural pre-selection’ rather than individual preference. In English, for example, one can say that a person is ‘in/on a bus’ or ‘in a car’, but not ‘*on a car’ (also see Lyons 1977:697, Jackendoff and Landau 1992:117), even though a bus and a car are similar in that both can be thought of as enclosures, which would prompt the selection of ‘in’, or a platform (the seat or the floor), which would prompt the selection of ‘on’. However, English requires that a car be conceptualized as an enclosure, not a platform. According to Talmy, the use of ‘on’ for a bus was originally applied to topless carts and stages, and has since been applied to new vehicles serving a similar function. And although one might argue that the distinction may be based on the idea that the bus floor as a walkway is a salient part not present in a car, this factor does not seem to determine the use since in German, both vehicles are also conceptualized as


enclosures, but not platforms, which indicates that the necessary use of ‘on’ for a bus in English is a language-specific convention (1983:261).

Certain interpretations of di can be blocked by the existence of fixed expressions involving another preposition. For example, the utterance John di belakang can be interpreted, in principle, either as ‘John is in the back room’, ‘John is in the backyard’, ‘John is in the kitchen’ (the kitchen being traditionally located in the back part of the house) or ‘John is in the toilet’. However, the last reading is blocked by the existence of the fixed expression ke belakang (literally meaning ‘to the back’), which has the conventionalized meaning ‘to go to the toilet’. This euphemistic expression is based on the traditional location of toilets, namely, at the back of the house (either inside or outside). The non-conventionalized use of di and the conventionalized use ke can be shown for instance, in (27) and (28). In (27) ke belakang suggests a certain activity which cannot be expressed by di, as in (28). Di belakang (28) can only suggest a locative meaning, e.g. in the back seat of the car, in the back row, at the end of the line, and so forth, depending on the context.

(27) X mau ke belakang. (Lit. ‘X wants to go to the back.’) ‘X wants to go to the toilet.’

(28) *X mau di belakang. (Lit. ‘X wants to go to the toilet.’)

3.2.1.1.4 Discourse contexts

Effective communication essentially involves a successful recovery of the speaker’s intent. As a preposition with general semantic content, an occurence of di often creates multiple possibilities of interpretation, which may render the recovery of that intent difficult. For example, the utterance Ibu di rumah sakit can be interpreted as ‘Mother is in hospital’ (+> (implicates) ‘she is sick’), or ‘Mother is at the hospital’ (+> working or visiting someone). Besides the factors already discussed above, speakers employ other strategies for minimizing the possibilities of misinterpretation. One such strategy is for the speaker to supply more information in the discourse about the location. Consider, for instance, the following example from a short story, where the imprecision of the locative phrase di rumah Meli ‘at Meli’s house’ is rendered more specific through relativization.

(29) Karena selain bekerja sebagai tukang cuci dari rumah ke because beside work as labourer wash from house DIR

rumah, Bik Encim suka ngerumpi di rumah Meli yang kini house Bik Encim like gossip LOC house Meli REL now

sudah di-permak jadi salon rambut. already PASS-transform become salon hair ‘Because, besides working as a laundry person from house to house,

Bik Encim also likes gossiping at Meli’s house which has now been transformed into a hair salon.’ (W/N-CALO)

The added information in the relative clause yang kini sudah dipermak menjadi salon rambut ‘which has now been transformed into a hair salon’ enables us to infer that the

46 Chapter 3

gossiping takes place in the interior part of the house now used as a hair salon, and not the outside (e.g. on the verandah or backyard). Without this added information, di rumah Meli can be interpreted as ‘anywhere outside or inside the house’.

In spoken interactions, particularly casual conversations, participants often get away with being less specific and supply additional information only as the need arises. They generally know that if their addressees have difficulties in identifying the intended referent, they would seek clarification or confirmation. Notice in the example below, where the speaker is talking about hiding behind the roots of a large tree in a national park, that di is used to suggest ‘behind, and not on the roots’.

(30) saya sembunyi di akar-nya. 1Sg hide LOC root-1Sg.POSS (Lit. ‘I hid on its roots.’) ‘I hid behind its roots.’ (S/N-ENTO)

By using di alone instead of the more precise form di belakang ‘in back of, behind’, the speaker assumes that the addressee can, through the occurrence of the verb sembunyi ‘hide’, arrive at the intended meaning. The disambiguation strategy employed by the speaker in this case is linguistically driven, in the sense that the presence of the verb enables the addressee to interpret the utterance as ‘behind’. But this is not the only factor that enables this inference to be made. Although roots are not usually thought of as places for hiding, we also know from general knowledge that large trees may have large roots which grow above the ground (e.g. the banyan tree), and we can infer that it is their sheer size which makes them a suitable place for hiding. This inference is also made possible by the previous discourse context, in which the speaker relays information about the size of trees in the national park. In other words, the intended location involving di is recoverable through the combination of discourse context, verbal meaning, and general knowledge.

When speakers do not employ sufficient linguistic resources to disambiguate the utterance, the addressee often seeks more precision of information to ensure that her/his interpretation matches the speaker’s intent. Below is from a conversation in which speaker E is telling her addresse N where she stayed during her fieldwork in a national park. In the excerpt, N wants to confirm that by the phrase di hutan ‘at/in the forest’, speaker E means ‘somewhere within the boundary of the national park’, and not, say, ‘adjacent to the Landmark’s outer boundary’. Here N’s uncertainty is triggered by the fact that through pragmatic tolerance the spatial scope of di’s Landmark can be stretched to the latter. The use of the compound di dalam ‘inside’ blocks the latter reading of di.

(31) E: Ya itu waktu di situ tuh. ..‘Kan itu .. saya nginep-nya di yes that time LOC there that EMP that 1Sg stay-DEF4 LOC

pos ya. post yes N: Mm. E: Situ ‘kan punya .. kayak wisma. 3Pl EMP have like guesthouse

4 The enclitic -nya has several functions. For simplicity I gloss it as either third person possessive marker

(POSS) or as definite marker (DEF). In a more detailed glossing, -nya in (31) would be more accurately glossed as a nominalizer.


N: Mm.

E: Itu ya pos <di> .. di hutan situ <XX> di situ. that yes post LOC forest there LOC there

N: <Di> .. di dalam hutan? LOC inside forest

E: Iya. yes

E: ‘Yes, that’s right, it was when I was there. I was staying at the post, right. They have something like a guesthouse.’

N: ‘Mm.’ E: ‘That was the post <in> .. in (di) that forest <XX> over there.’ N ‘<In> .. inside (di dalam) the forest?’ E: ‘Yes.’ (S/N-ENDA)

The preceding examples suggest that, because of its relative generality, di can be conveniently exploited to suit a speaker’s/writer’s purposes in discourse. In the absence of specification (e.g. through relativization and the use of compound forms), an addressee may rely on her/his knowledge of stereotypical situations for interpretation.

The fact that di as a general localizer does nothing more than evoking the image of the Trajector and Landmark as being coincident also explains why this preposition—and not pada or dalam—is selected for other functions such as a deictic or anaphoric marker since these functions suggest that what speakers/writers do by the use of the term is pointing, that is, pointing to a location relative to the speaker and ‘pointing back’ (referring back) to a previous mention in discourse, respectively. The forms di sini ‘here’, di situ ‘there’, and di sana ‘over there’ fulfil these functions sufficiently. It is also because of its generality that di is used as as a general question word for location di mana ‘where’, which does not specify the location. This word also functions as a relative marker.

3.2.2 Interpreting spatial occurrences of di

Having now established the spatial meaning of di as a general localizer and having examined the different aspects of general and situational knowledge drawn upon in the interpretations of utterances involving this preposition, I shall now describe the possible interpretations of the occurrences of di in various contexts.

3.2.2.1 Static and dynamic contexts

Most accounts state that di is a static preposition, that is, it does not suggest movement. Sneddon (1996:189) for example, points out that di contrasts with ke ‘to, toward’ in that only ke can denote movement toward a location. Similarly, Chaer (1990:28) asserts that di denotes keadaan ‘diam’ atau ‘berhenti’ ‘stationary’ or ‘static’ situation. This assumption is inaccurate for the following reasons. First, as already pointed out in the previous chapter, prepositions cannot in themselves encode movement since they are atemporal. Movement is denoted generally by verbs or can be inferred from general knowledge and situational

48 Chapter 3

context. Secondly, di can occur in relational contexts that suggest movement, either movement in the sense of a change of location, or movement along a path. The term ‘path’ here is understood as a conceptual construct referring to a series of contiguous points that leads to an endpoint or ‘goal’ (Taylor 1993, Tyler and Evans 2003:217–218). Thus movement can be inferred from the contexts of di but does not constitute part of its semantic range.

In spatial use, di generally treats the Landmark as ‘place’, that is, as a spatial location that is construed as stationary. Static contexts involve the relation between a Trajector and its Landmark at a fixed point in time (that is, it does not progress through time). Relations involving geographical locations construed as bounded locations are commonly referred to with di, as in (32)–(34).

(32) ... ketika saya tinggal di negeri kaktus Meksiko .... when 1Sg live LOC country cactus Mexico ‘... when I was living in the cactus country of Mexico ....’ (W/N-UNDA)

(33) ... reporter suatu majalah wanita di ibu kota. reporter INDEF magazine woman LOC mother city ‘... reporter of a women’s magazine in the capital city.’ (W/N-KUAL)

(34) ... lima puskesmas di Palembang. five community.health.centre LOC Palembang. ‘... five community health centres in Palembang.’ (W/E-DAMP)

In dynamic contexts di suggests either the place where the movement of the Trajector is contained, as in (36)–(38), or where movement terminates, as in (39). In (36) the movement is metaphorical or ‘subjective’ (Langacker 1991:160–163). That is, there is actually no physical movement as such; rather, the movement (in this case, the spreading) is mentally perceived.

(35) Kelelawar beterbangan di celah-celah bangunan bat fly.around LOC crevice-RDP building ‘Bats are flying about in between buildings.’ (Ajidarma 1995:85)

(36) B: Dan hotel itu sekarang sudah berkembang di seluruh dunia. and hotel that now PERF spread LOC all.over world Lit. ‘And that hotel chain has now spread in all parts of the world.’ ‘That hotel chain has now spread all over the world.’ (S/E-PROSP)

(37) Hanya se-ekor dadali terbang melintas di langit. only CLASS dadali fly across LOC sky ‘Only a dadali bird flew past in the sky.’ (Tohari 1982:156)

(38) Hal ini di-sebabkan karena jumlah kendaraan yang matter this PASS-cause because total.number vehicle REL

lalu-lalang di jalan raya sudah terlalu banyak go.back.and.forth LOC road big PERF too many

jika di-bandingkan dengan panjang ruas jalan yang ada. when PASS-compare with length block road REL exist ‘This is because the number of vehicles going back and forth along the main

roads is far too many for the length of the existing roads.’ (W/E-MOBN)


(39) Buang kertas ini di tempat sampah. throw paper this LOC place rubbish ‘Put this paper in the rubbish bin.’

Roolvink (1948:85) refers to the interpretation of di in contexts such as (39) as the ‘result of a process’. He states that in this use, di occurs with verbs such as kirim ‘send’, mendarat ‘land’, and meletakkan ‘put’. For example:

(40) tidak oesah kirim makanan di-kamar NEG need send food LOC-room ‘do not send food to the room’

(41) mendarat di-lapangan terbang Kali Banteng land LOC-field fly Kali Banteng ‘land at the Kali Banteng airport’

(42) meletakkan kepala-nya boeat penghabisan sekali di-bantal lay head-3Sg.POSS for end time LOC-pillow ketidoeran fall.asleep ‘put his/her head for the last time on the pillow, falling asleep’

Similarly, Slametmuljana (1957:170) points out that di can occur with some verbs denoting movement, such as datang ‘come’, sampai ‘arrive’, and singgah ‘stop by’, and so on, and that in this case, it is often interchangeably used with the directional preposition ke ‘to, toward’. According to Slametmuljana, whether speakers choose di or ke depends on whether they want to suggest the meaning ‘be at a place’ or ‘go toward a place’, respectively. However, the distinction does not always hold. Notice in (43) that even though ke is perfectly acceptable when occurring with the verb datang ‘come’ in (43a), the same verb with di in (43b) is awkward.

(43) a. Jam lima nanti, datang-lah ke rumah saya. hour five later come-EMP DIR house 1Sg ‘Later at 5 o’clock, come to my house.’ (Slametmuljana 1957:171)

b. ??Jam lima nanti, datanglah di rumah saya.

The awkwardness of di here seems to have something to do with the conventionalization of expressions. The expression datang ke rumah ‘come to a house’ represents a common way of inviting someone over (to someone’s house, a party, a seminar, etc.), thus the use of ke in this case has become relatively fixed.

Another example is shown in (44a). Here, ke cannot be substituted for by di, as can be seen in (44b).

(44) a. Tahun depan Ayu naik ke kelas 1 SMP. year front Ayu go.up DIR class 1 junior.high.school ‘Next year Ayu will move up to the first year of junior high school.’

b. *Tahun depan Ayu naik di kelas 1 SMP.

Naik ke kelas x ‘to move up to class x’ is a common expression for talking about prep, primary, and high school students moving up to a higher level (or naik ke tingkat x ‘move

50 Chapter 3

up to level x’ for levels or positions in general), thus the occurrence of di in (44b) is unacceptable. In the context of schooling, di commonly occurs with the verb duduk to say that someone is at a certain class level. In this context, ke is unacceptable, as in (45b).

(45) a. Ayu duduk di kelas 1 SMP. Ayu sit LOC class 1 junior.high.school Lit. ‘Ayu sits in the first year of junior high school.’ ‘Ayu is in the first year of junior high school.’

b. *Ayu duduk ke kelas 1 SMP.

These examples accord with the observation made earlier about conventionalized expressions, namely, that such expressions block the possibility of another preposition being used as an alternative for expressing a particular meaning.

With other verbs indicating movement, such as naik ‘go up’, both di and ke are acceptable, as in (46a-b) and (47a-b), and it is not clear that di and ke are used to denote place and direction, respectively.

(46) a. Emosi akan menggelegak, frustrasi akan naik di kepala. emotion FUT seethe frustration FUT go.up LOC head ‘Emotion will seethe, frustration will rise up to the head.’ (Kayam 1992:12)

b. Emosi akan menggelegak, frustrasi akan naik ke kepala.

(47) a. Ali naik di pohon. Ali go.up LOC tree Lit. ‘Ali went up on the tree.’ ‘Ali went up the tree.’

b. Ali naik ke pohon.

The same can be said about occurrences of di and ke with verbs such as sampai ‘arrive’ and singgah ‘stop by’ which, despite Slametmuljana’s claims, cannot always be distinguished. Consider the following two examples in which either preposition is acceptable.5

(48) a. Kami sampai di Bandung malam hari. 1Pl arrive LOC Bandung night day ‘We arrived in Bandung at night time.’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:777)

b. Kami sampai ke Bandung malam hari.

(49) a. Kami tidak terus ke Bedahulu, melainkan singgah 1Pl NEG continue DIR Bedahulu but stop.by

dahulu di Kintamani. first LOC Kintamani ‘We didn’t go straight to Bedahulu, but stopped first in Kintamani.’

(Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:843)

b. Kami tidak terus ke Bedahulu, melainkan singgah dahulu ke Kintamani.

5 The examples in (48a) and (49a) are taken from a different source because Slametmuljana does not give

any examples of di and ke with the verbs sampai and singgah. The (b) examples are my own.


It is not evident from these examples alone that di and ke suggest ‘be at a place’ and ‘go toward a place’ respectively. The interchangeability of di and ke only serve to show that movement is not denoted by the preposition but rather by the motion verb. As such, and taking into consideration the conventionalization of expressions discussed earlier, it matters little whether di or ke is chosen, because in this case, the function of the preposition is merely to link the Trajector to the Landmark (O’Dowd 1998), rather than to specify the static or dynamic nature of the context.

To show that di denotes static relations, it is necessary to find a context in which it can be contrasted with ke, such as in (50).

(50) a. Mereka ke bioskop. 3Pl DIR movie ‘They went to the movies.’ +> they have gone from the place of

utterance but may or may not actually be at the movies

b. Mereka di bioskop. 3Pl LOC movie ‘They are at the movies.’ +> not elsewhere

These two utterances differ not only in terms of the static/dynamic dimension but also the inferences they generate. The utterance in (50a) I-implicates that the people are at the movies, but does not entail that they have arrived and are now at the movies (for example, they may have arrived at the movies but then decided to go elsewhere). Thus (50a) implicates but does not entail (50b). Meanwhile, (50b) Q-implicates that the people are not elsewhere but at the movies, and it presupposes (50a).

Unlike Slametmuljana who asserts the compatibility of di with motion verbs, Lapoliwa (1992:39) defines the static meaning of di in terms of its compatibility with some supposedly stative verbs such as tinggal ‘live, stay’, ada ‘be’, ditempatkan ‘be put, be placed’, menyimpan ‘keep, store’, and menitipkan ‘entrust something to somebody’. Even though these verbs can indicate static relations, there are two reasons to suggest that this assumption is misleading. First, these verbs do not always suggest static relations. For example, menitipkan is ambiguous between durative and completive readings. Dia sedang pergi menitipkan anaknya di ibunya ‘S/he has gone out to take her child to her mother’s (to be left with her)’ implies that the person is in the process of leaving the child with the mother, whereas Dia kemarin menitipkan anaknya di ibunya ‘S/he left her child with her mother yesterday’ suggests a completed action, yet in both sentences the location is indicated by di, the Landmark in this case is being treated as goal. Secondly, di can occur not only with stative verbs but also with motion verbs, as we have seen in (46a) and (47a). In those examples, di highlights a goal, that is, the endpoint of the Trajector’s movement. Thus the ‘goal’ reading is an interpretation of di in dynamic contexts.

The uncertainty about which verbs are or are not compatible with di only serves to show that, first, the meanings of di cannot be defined solely with reference to the individual verbs with which it can occur, and secondly, di can in fact suggest either static or dynamic relations depending on context. The absence of verbs indicating motion or displacement gives di a static reading as a default, while the presence of motion verbs generates a dynamic reading where di can indicate either the space where the Trajector’s movement or trajectory is observed (irrespective of whether there is a direct contact between the Trajector and the Landmark), or the endpoint of the Trajector’s movement. Thus stativity

52 Chapter 3

and dynamicity do not belong to the rules of use for di but rather, are interpretations of its occurrences in different contexts.

3.2.2.2 Relations of contact and support

Some occurrences of di feature topological relations of contact and support, although contact does not always suggest support. Contact can be understood in static or dynamic terms. Static contact suggests that the Trajector is coincident and is in physical contact with the Landmark, while dynamic contact indicates that the Trajector comes into contact with its Landmark, treating the Landmark as endpoint. Contact can also be interpreted as attachment (i.e. that the Trajector is attached to or comes to be attached to the Landmark. The example in (51) shows a static contact relation.

(51) Tetes-tetes embun di pucuk daun menangkap sinar itu dan drop-RDP dew LOC tip leaf catch light that and

membiaskan-nya menjadi pelangi lembut yang berpendar-pendar. deflect-3Sg become rainbow soft REL fluorescent-RDP ‘Drops of dew on the tip of the leaves catch the light and deflect to become a

soft fluorescent rainbow.’ (Tohari 1982:65)

In (52) and (53) the contact relation is dynamic, and the Landmark serves as the goal of movement. In (53) the contact relation can be specified further as the attachment of the Trajector to the Landmark.

(52) Max mendekat. Memegang kedua pundak Ira dari belakang, Max approach hold both shoulder Ira from behind

menyilangkan tangan-nya di leher Ira. cross arm-3Sg.POSS LOC neck Ira ‘Max came over. Held Ira’s shoulders from behind, crossing his arms on

her neck.’ (Ajidarma 1995:51–52)

(53) Terakhir, pasang saringan udara pengganti di mulut karburator finally attach filter air replacement LOC mouth carburetor ‘Finally, attach the new air filter to the top of the carburetor.’ (W/P-PASA)

Contact may include covering of the Landmark by the Trajector, either partial, as in (54), or total, as in (55).

(54) Dan rasa malu pun rasa-nya lengkap sudah, waktu and feeling embarassment EMP feel-DEF complete PERF when

ujung gaun saya nyangkut di ranting. corner dress 1Sg.POSS catch.on LOC branch ‘And my feeling of embarassment was made complete when a corner of

my dress was caught on a tree branch.’ (W/N-KUAL)

(55) Kenakan pakaian yang longgar dan nyaman di badan. put.on clothes REL loose and comfortable LOC body Lit. ‘Wear clothing which are loose and comfortable on the body.’ ‘Wear loose and comfortable clothing.’ (W/P-YOGA)


Alternatively, contact may be indicated by attachment of the Trajector to the surface of the Landmark, as in (56) below. Here the Landmark pohon ‘tree’ refers to the surface of the trunk or branches. It is of no importance whether the Trajector (uwi ‘sweet potato’) attaches itself vertically on the tree trunk, or horizontally on the upper or underside of the branches.

(56) uwi, semacam ubi yang berkulit hitam dan tumbuh-nya uwi a.kind.of sweet.potato REL have.skin black and grow-DEF

menjalar di pohon creep LOC tree ‘uwi is a kind of sweet potato with black skin and it grows on the tree.’

(Kayam 1992:15)

The notion of support implies a relation on the vertical axis where the Trajector is borne by the Landmark. The relation of contact that also suggests support may also reflect a functional interaction between the Trajector and Landmark in the sense that the Trajector is in contact with and supported by the most functional part of the Landmark, as in (57). In this example, the most functional part is the chair’s upper planar surface on which the person sits. Similarly in (58), the table’s worktop is the most functional part. In both examples, the stereotypical situation involves the Trajector being located on the flat upper surface part of the Landmark and is supported by this part.

(57) Saya pura-pura membaca koran di kursi goyang dekat 1Sg pretend-RDP read newspaper LOC chair move near

jendela taman belakang. window garden back ‘I pretended to read the newspaper on the rocking chair near the window

facing the back garden.’ +> on the chair’s upper surface (W/N-CALO)

(58) hingga tua sekarang pun saya selalu minta istri saya until old now even 1Sg always ask wife 1Sg.POSS

sering-sering menyediakan jajanan seperti itu di meja. often-RDP prepare snack like that LOC table ‘even now in my old age I always ask my wife to frequently provide

snacks like those, on the table.’ +> on the table’s upper surface (Kayam 1992:12)

The fact that this interpretation does not constitute a distinct meaning can be shown by the identity test in (59). Because di is semantically general, it allows a cross-interpretation; that is, each part of the sentence can suggest a different sense (Cruse 1986:62). In (59) the hat may be on the upper surface part of the table but the bubble gum may be stuck to the underside of the table or to one of its legs.

(59) Topi-nya di meja, begitu juga permen karet-nya. hat-DEF LOC table so also sweet rubber-DEF ‘The hat is on the table, so is the bubble gum.’

Other instances of di may feature a support relation without necessarily implying any functional interaction per se, as in (60) and (61).

54 Chapter 3

(60) Duduk atau berbaring dengan tenang. Letakkan tangan di pangkuan. sit or lie.down with calm rest hand LOC lap ‘Sit or lie down quietly. Rest (your) hands on (your) lap’ (W/P-LATI)

(61) Kain sarung tidak di-pakai-nya melainkan di-silangkan-nya di cloth sarong NEG PASS-wear-3Sg but PASS-cross-3Sg LOC

pundak. shoulder ‘He didn’t wear his sarong but just slung it over his shoulder.’ (Tohari 1982:87)

The following is a summary of the range of interpretations of di in relations highlighting the notions of contact and support.

X is in contact with or comes into contact with Y: Drops of dew on tips of leaves (51) One’s arms crossed on someone else’s shoulders (52) Car air filter attached to the carburetor (53)

X is in contact and either partially or completely covers Y: Dress caught on a tree branch (54) Clothes on the body (55) Creeper plant growing on a tree trunk (56)

X is in contact and supported by Y: Person sitting on a chair (57) Food on the table (58) Hands on the lap (60) Sarong slung over one’s shoulder (61)

3.2.2.3 Landmark as surface

Some instances of di highlight the Landmark as some sort of surface, and the Trajector is part of that surface, as exemplified in (62).

(62) Tak ada nama di pintu rumah itu. NEG be name LOC door house that ‘There is no name on that front door. (Ajidarma 1995:125)

It is worth emphasizing here that the interpretation of di results not only from the nature of the Landmark, but more importantly, from its relation with the Trajector. Di with the same Landmark, but with a different Trajector, would often produce a totally different reading. For example, in (63) we have the same Landmark as in (62), but the Trajector is a person. This sentence may be uttered by person X in a situation where s/he and person Y are at home (inside the house), and X heard someone knocking at the door.

(63) Ada orang di pintu. exist person LOC door ‘There is someone at the door.’


In this case, the phrase di pintu does not reflect the conceptualization of the Landmark as a surface, but rather, points to the location ‘behind the door, on the exterior side of the house, imperceptible to speaker’. Imperceptibility motivates a remote viewpoint, which means that the precise position of the person behind the door is of no importance (the person may for instance, lean against the door, or stand facing the door after knocking). Thus di in this case merely indicates close proximity between the Trajector and Landmark; the interpretation that the person knocking is behind the door is determined by the relative position of the speaker and addressee with respect to her/him.

The following two examples are similar to (62) in that the Trajector is suggested as being part of the Landmark’s surface.

(64) Bekas-bekas peluru di tembok gedung tampak jelas. trace-RDP bullet LOC wall building visible clear ‘Traces of bullets on the building walls are clearly visible.’ (Ramlan 1980:66)

(65) Srintil bertambah manis dengan lekuk kecil di pipi kiri-nya Srintil become.more sweet with dent small LOC cheek left-3Sg.POSS

bila ia sedang tertawa. when 3Sg IMPERF laugh

‘Srintil looks prettier with the small dimple on her left cheek when she smiles.’ (Tohari 1982:67)

Alternatively, the relation may suggest that Trajector is in contact but is not part of the surface of the Landmark, as in (66a) below.

(66) a. Dengan cara ini lama-kelamaan bekicot tidak menempel with method this gradually-RDP snail NEG stick

dan bersembunyi di pagar kandang. and hide LOC fence pen

‘With this method, the snails will gradually stop sticking to and hiding behind the fence.’ (W/P-BEKI)

b. Bekicot itu bersembunyi di pagar, tapi tidak di depan pagar. snail that hide LOC fence but NEG LOC front fence

‘The snail is hiding on the fence, but not on the front (i.e. visible) side of the fence.’+> behind

In this example, the contact relation is reinforced by the verb menempel ‘stick’, and the Trajector is suggested as being imperceptible to an observer, as indicated by the verb bersembunyi ‘hide’. This reading is an inference that is generated by the presence of the verb bersembunyi ‘hide’, and not part of the meaning of di. Notice in (66b) that it is reinforceable, i.e. it can be conjoined by an overt statement of its content without a sense of anomalous redundancy (Levinson 1983:120).

Di occurring with a Landmark construed as a planar surface can also designate the underside of that surface. In the following example, di permukaan air does not refer to the upper surface of the water, but rather, the underside of the water surface (the fish moves from under the water upward to the water surface).

56 Chapter 3

(67) (koi) ... tidak berusaha mencari oksigen di permukaan air .... NEG try look.for oxygen LOC surface water ‘(the Koi fish) ... is not trying to find oxygen on the surface of the water ....’

(W/P-KOI)

Di can also get the ‘under’ interpretation in a dynamic context, indicating the displacement of the Trajector from its original unspecified position to a position under the Landmark surface, as in (68). In this case, the interpretation is facilitated by our knowledge of plants and the way they grow, plus the presence of the verb ditanam ‘be planted’; thus di tanah indicates a location ‘downwards from the surface of the ground’, not ‘on the surface of the ground’.

(68) Tanaman helikonia dapat di-tanam dalam pot maupun plant heliconia can PASS-plant LOC pot as.well.as

langsung di tanah. directly LOC ground ‘Heliconia can be planted in pots or directly in the ground.’ (W/P-HELI)

Compare with (69) below in which di also can be interpreted as ‘under and inside’; that is, the Trajector moves past the Landmark’s surface to the location under it, as indicated by the verb membenamkan ‘to drown something or someone’. By implication, to be under the surface and enclosed or surrounded by the ground means that the Trajector is ‘inside’ the ground and imperceptible to an observer.

(69) Aduh malu-nya! Ingin rasa-nya membenamkan diri di tanah. EXCL embarrassed-DEF want feel-DEF drown self LOC ground ‘How embarrasing! I felt like burying myself under the ground.’ (W/N-KUAL)

One way of distinguishing the ‘under’ and ‘under and inside’ readings of di is by substituting di with the compound forms di bawah ‘under’ and di dalam ‘inside’ (see §3.4 for further discussion on the compound forms). Di bawah, which suggests a contrast on the vertical axis between the Landmark’s surface and the region under it, makes the utterance sound awkward, as shown in (70a), while di dalam is acceptable, as in (70b). This also shows that di itself is general, but its occurrence in a compound form gives a more specific interpretation. In other words, with regard to the Landmark tanah, di can be interpreted as either ‘on the upper surface of the ground’, ‘under the surface of the ground’, or ‘under the surface of the ground and inside’, but which of these interpretations is intended can be made more explicit by a compound form.

(70) a. ??Aduh malunya! Ingin rasanya membenamkan diri di bawah tanah.

b. Aduh malunya! Ingin rasanya membenamkan diri di dalam tanah.

The ‘under and inside’ interpretation of di also obtains when the Landmark is liquid, as shown in (71a), made explicit by the compund di dalam ‘inside’ in (71c).

(71) a. Aduh malunya! Ingin rasanya membenamkan diri di air.

b. *Aduh malunya! Ingin rasanya membenamkan diri di bawah air.

c. Aduh malunya! Ingin rasanya membenamkan diri di dalam air.

Di in its ‘inside’ interpretation, then, is similar to one of the meanings of dalam (see Chapter 5). Thus worms are said to live ‘inside’ water or the ground (di dalam air/tanah),


not ‘under’ it (*di bawah air/tanah). Notice the following definition of cacing ‘worm’ from the Kamus Besar Bahasa Baku ‘Comprehensive Standard Indonesian Dictionary’, in which dalam gives this interpretation.

(72) Cacing: binatang yang tubuh-nya bulat atau pipih panjang worm animal REL body-3Sg.POSS round or flat long

dan tidak beranggota (ada yang hidup dalam air, tanah, and NEG have.part exist REL live LOC water ground

perut manusia, atau binatang). stomach human or animal

‘Worm: an animal whose body is round or flat and long and does not have parts (some live in the water, the ground, human stomach or animal stomach).’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:144)

Another clue to obtaining different interpretations is to apply different antonyms to the two senses. When the Landmark is a surface, di in the sense of bawah can generally be contrasted with atas ‘on (top)’ or permukaan ‘surface’, as in (67) seen earlier, suggesting a contrast between the location on the surface (or on its underside) and that below it. Dalam ‘inside’, on the other hand, contrasts with luar ‘outside’. Thus when someone is swimming we can say that s/he is di dalam air ‘inside the water’, and when s/he comes out, s/he has keluar ‘gone or been outside’.

The preceding examples suggest that there is a relation between the notions of ‘surface’ and ‘inside’ in that the surface serves as a boundary or demarcation point through which to get to the region inside. In this sense, di is comparable to yirrhwalvng ‘downwards’ in Dalabon (an Australian language spoken in Arnhemland, Northern Territory), in the context pointed out by Evans (1996) below.

(73) Djenj yirrwalvng mambard-kah bvlah-barlkang fish downwards billycan-LOC they-put.inside.PP ‘They put the fish down inside the billycan’

A similar case is observed by Harkins and Wilkins (quoted in Wierzbicka 1994:488) in Arrernte, an Australian language spoken in Alice Springs, in which the word kwene ‘under’ can mean either ‘under’ or ‘inside’. Harkins and Wilkins propose that the two meanings be accounted for as one that shares the meaning elements ‘surroundedness’ and ‘invisibility’. However, as Wierzbicka points out, the fact that this word is perceived as an antonym both of kethe ‘outside’ and of kertne ‘top’ suggests that this term may in fact be polysemous. As for di, ‘under’ and ‘inside’ do not constitute distinct meanings even though it can also be contrasted with both ‘top’ and ‘outside’. Notice in (74) for instance that it allows a crossed-interpretation; the worms may be on the surface or under (‘inside’) the ground, while the ants are on the surface.

(74) Cacing-cacing dan semut-semut semua di tanah. worm-RDP and ant-RDP all LOC ground ‘Worms and ants are all in/on the ground.’

The instance of di showing the Trajector ‘on the underside of the Landmark’s surface’ is given in (75).

58 Chapter 3

(75) Namun semua urat di leher-nya kaku. but all nerve LOC neck-3Sg.POSS stiff ‘But all the nerves on his neck are stiff.’ (Tohari 1982:39)

Compare (75) with (76) and (77), where di refers to the planar surface of the ground. This interpretation is induced by the presence of the Landmark tanah ‘ground’ and the verbs terkulai ‘lay weakly’ and duduk bersila ‘sit cross-legged’ respectively. Without the verb terkulai in (76) the utterance can be interpreted as, for instance, referring to the mother and child being ‘under’ the ground (e.g. in an underground hiding), or ‘under and inside’ the ground (i.e. buried).

(76) Ibu dan anak terkulai di tanah. mother and child lay.weakly LOC ground ‘Mother and child lay weakly on the ground.’ (Tohari 1982:31)

(77) Mereka menata perkakas masing-masing, duduk bersila 3Pl arrange equipment each-RDP sit cross-legged

di tanah. LOC ground

‘They arranged their own equipment, sitting cross-legged on the ground.’ (Tohari 1982:69)

To sum up, the following are the range of interpretations of di in which the prepositional relation highlights the Landmark as a surface.

X is part of Y’s surface Name on the door (61) Bullet traces on walls (63) Dimples on cheeks (64)

X is in contact but not part of Y’s surface: Snail on the fence (65)

X is under the surface of Y: Fish on water surface (67) Nerves on the neck (75)

X is under the Y’s surface and inside: Plant in the ground (68) Bury oneself under the ground (69) Worm in the water or in the ground (72)

X is on the upper surface of the Landmark: People lying or sitting on the ground (76, 77)

3.2.2.4 Containing and enclosing relations

When the landmark is construed as some sort of enclosure or container, the stereotypical situation is that the Trajector may be partially or wholly enclosed or contained within the Landmark. In (78) di bagasi I-implicates that the Trajector is inside the enclosed space designated as the car boot. Similarly in (79), di wadah persemaian ‘in


the seedling container’ I-implicates also that the Trajector is inside and is contained by the seedbed.

(78) Ideal-nya, letakkan bawaan di bagasi atau di bawah jok. ideal-DEF put luggage LOC car.boot or LOC under seat ‘Ideally, put your luggage in the boot or under the seats.’ (W/P-TAMA)

(79) … siapkan campuran pupuk kandang dan sekam padi, prepare mixture fertilizer pen and husk rice .. dengan perbandingan dua banding satu, with ratio two compare one .. dan tempatkan di wadah persemaian. and put LOC container growing ‘…prepare a mixture of manure and rice husks .. with the ratio two by

one .. and put it in the seedbed.’ (S/P-SIRI)

Body parts viewed as concavities can also be thought of as being container-like. The examples in (80) and (81) both I-implicate that the Trajector is contained or enclosed by the Landmark, either partially or totally.

(80) Dengan mata waspada tupai itu melompat-lompat di atas with eye cautious squirrel that hop-RDP LOC top tanah, lalu naik lagi dengan se-ekor si kaki se-ribu ground then go.up again with one-CLASS DEF foot one-thousand tergigit di mulut-nya. be.bitten LOC mouth-3Sg.POSS ‘With cautious eyes, the squirrel hopped up and down on the ground, then

went up again with a centipede in its mouth.’ (Tohari 1982:65)

(81) Keris yang ku-bawa dari rumah masih ku-selipkan di kris REL 1Sg-carry from house still 1Sg-slip LOC ketiak-ku, rapi tergulung dalam baju. armpit-1Sg.POSS neat be.rolled LOC shirt ‘The keris which I brought from home is still tucked under my armpit,

neatly wrapped in a shirt.’ (Tohari 1982:60)

The range of interpretations of di with Landmarks construed as a container or an enclosure can be summarized as follows:

X inside and contained or enclosed by Y, either partially or wholly. Luggage in car boot (78) Planting mixture in seedbed (79) Centipede in squirrel’s mouth (80) Keris under armpit (81)

The foregoing description has shown some possible interpretations of the general spatial meaning of di, inferable from its occurrences in various contexts. In what follows I discuss the extended meanings of this preposition, in which the notion of a spatial location is extended to human, time, and abstract concepts.

60 Chapter 3

The general spatial meaning of di, then, can be summed up as follows.

Di1: X occupies the same portion of physical space as Y

3.3 Extended meanings of di

All previous studies of di have one point in common; they all agree that di denotes the location of some entity in some spatial location. I have already discussed the mixed views about whether or not di can suggest movement and argued that it can but that for this interpretation to obtain it needs to co-occur with a verb which implies either movement or displacement.

Some accounts such as Li (1976) and Chaer (1990) assert that di, unlike pada, cannot co-occur with either human, abstract or temporal Landmarks, while others such as Ramlan state that di can occur with temporal and abstract Landmarks but not with human Landmarks (1980:66, 92). The ensuing sections will show that di does occur with human Landmarks, although the use may not occur in formal written texts. I shall argue that, as with temporal and abstract uses, occurrences of di with human Landmarks constitute an extension of the general spatial meaning, whereby humans are treated as locations. These extended uses are discussed in turn below.

3.3.1 Di with human Landmarks

Most previous accounts argue that di cannot occur with a human noun. Ramlan writes as follows.

Di muka kata benda insani selalu dipakai kata depan pada. Misalnya: Pada orang itu terdapat sifat-sifat yang patut dijadikan contoh teladan.

Kata depan pada kalimat di atas tidak dapat diganti dengan kata depan di sekalipun kata yang mengikutinya tidak secara khusus menyatakan tempat, karena kata depan di tidak pernah diikuti kata benda insani. (emphasis his) ‘In front of human nouns we should always use the preposition pada. For example:

Pada orang itu terdapat sifat-sifat yang patut dijadikan contoh teladan. ‘In that person we find traits which we can use as examples.’

The preposition in the above sentence cannot be substituted by the preposition di although the word following it is not an actual location, because di is never followed by a human noun.’ (1980:93)

A similar view is expressed by Slametmuljana (1957:169), and is reiterated by Li (1976:18), Chaer (1990:28), and Lapoliwa (1992:39). This view presents two problems, however. First, the term kata benda insani ‘human noun’ is never clarified (e.g. whether it refers to only NPs or includes pronouns). Second, and the more important point, is that this view is largely prescriptive and does not reflect the actual range of occurrences.

In relation to the first problem, consider an example below from a lecture on management and entrepreneurial skills, conducted by the Open University, where the pronoun kita ‘us’ is the Landmark.

(82) Di kita ini peran wiraswasta ini yang kadang-kadang LOC 1Pl this role entrepreneur this REL sometimes-RDP


susah kita cari ya. difficult 1Pl search yes Lit. ‘In us, this entrepreneurial role is sometimes difficult to find, isn’t it?’ ‘This entrepreneurial role is sometimes difficult to find among us, isn’t it?’

(S/E-TUTO)

Here kita refers to the Indonesian society, and the relation refers to the entrepreneurial attributes in members of that society, similar to the example given by Ramlan with pada quoted above, which can, in fact, also be substituted for by di. One might argue that a pronoun is not representative of the use; however, given the lack of clarification in previous studies as to what constitutes a ‘human noun’, this example nonetheless serves as evidence that di can occur with such a Landmark.

In relation to the second problem, it is common for a prescriptive view to consider only prototypical instances of use and neglect peripheral ones, particularly if they occur predominantly in spoken discourse, such as (82). Indeed, the occurrence of di with human Landmarks is not attested in the most formal type of text, namely written expository discourse, although 3 tokens are found in the spoken data of this genre (see §3.5). It also occurs in all of the other types of text, although in low frequency. For example, only 1 token is found in written procedural discourse, and 2 in spoken procedural. The highest frequency is found in narratives, with 8 tokens and 5 tokens being attested in spoken and written narrative, respectively. What this suggests is that occurrences of di with human Landmarks may be relatively recent and have not been conventionalized in written Indonesian, particularly in formal writing. This is unlike similar uses with pada, where the meaning ‘X is associated with person Y’ constitutes part of its semantic range (see Chapter 4). It is possible that this use has been gradually encroaching on the semantics of di, but has not made its way to formal written discourse.

In this study I treat occurrences of di with human Landmarks as an extension of the general spatial meaning, which requires that the Trajector and Landmark share the same portion of space. In the extended sense, ‘coincidence’ can be understood as ‘association’, suggesting the meaning ‘X is associated with person Y’. This meaning is primarily motivated by the association between humans and the place they occupy (Lyons 1977:693), or, in E. Clark’s terms, humans are treated as an ‘animate place’ (1978:89).

This use of di can result in different interpretations depending on whether the Trajector is also a human, or non-human, including abstract concepts such as in (82) seen earlier, where the relation can be interpreted as ‘attribute or behaviour of a person’.

When both the Trajector and the Landmark are human, the human Landmark is interpreted as the place s/he habitually occupies or is associated with, such as her/his dwelling or workplace, similar to the French preposition chez ‘at’ (e.g. chez moi ‘at my house’, chez Michel Roux ‘at Michel Roux’s (restaurant)’, chez le boulanger ‘at the baker’s’). For example, the Landmark Anton Lucas in (83) I-implicates the house of the said person.

(83) Di Adelaide saya di Anton Lucas. LOC Adelaide 1Sg LOC Anton Lucas Lit. ‘In Adelaide, I was at Anton Lucas.’ ‘In Adelaide I stayed at Anton Lucas’s.’ +> at Anton Lucas’s house

62 Chapter 3

This sentence was uttered by an Indonesian poet who in 2002 visited a number of cities in Australia, as a response to the question about where he was staying while in Adelaide. Here Anton Lucas cannot be interpreted as ‘Anton Lucas’s shop’ or ‘Anton Lucas’s office’ given the speech participants’ knowledge of him as an academic specializing in Indonesian studies. Hence, even though he might in fact own a shop, such information is not relevant to the speech participants in this context. In this sense, shared knowledge about the Landmark and the context of discourse are two important factors in facilitating the correct interpretation.

A similar example is given in (84), where the Landmark Yul refers to the person’s house. This interpretation is aided by the speaker’s and addressee’s knowledge that Ayu (the Trajector) often goes to Yul’s house to play. Hence the house is the place Yul is associated with in her relation to Ayu.

(84) N: Ayu mana? Ayu where ‘Where is Ayu?’

I: Di Yul. LOC Yul ‘At Yul’s.’ +> at Yul’s place

The fact that di Yul in this case designates a spatial place, and does not constitute a distinct meaning, can be shown by the acceptability of (85a) where di Yul can be referred to also with the general word tempat ‘place’. It can also be conjoined with another term for a spatial location without a sense of anomaly, as shown in (85b).

(85) a. Ayu di Yul; dia suka di tempat itu. ‘Ayu is at Yul’s; she likes being at that place.’

b. Ayu suka main di mal dan di Yul. Lit. ‘Ayu likes playing at the mall and at Yul’s.’ ‘Ayu likes hanging out at the mall and at Yul’s.’

In these cases it is not important whether the Landmark is with the Trajector at the time of utterance. It is sufficient that the human Landmark is identified with the space s/he habitually occupies; however, it is a prerequisite that the human Landmark dwells at the place, and not simply owns it for instance. Notice in (86a) that ownership of the place alone does not sanction the use of di. To say that the house belongs to the person, one would have to mention the word rumah ‘house’ to overtly indicate the possessive relation, as shown in (86b).

(86) a. *Di Adelaide saya di Anton Lucas, tapi dia tidak tinggal di situ. ‘In Adelaide I stayed at Anton Lucas’s, but he doesn’t live there.’

b. Di Adelaide saya di rumah Anton Lucas, tapi dia tidak tinggal di situ. ‘In Adelaide I (stayed) at Anton Lucas’s house, but he doesn’t live there.’

The preceding examples show that occurrences with human Trajector and a human Landmark is non-spatial. It is only through an association that humans come to be thought of as spatial locations.

A person as Landmark can also be interpreted as the location of her/his business or profession, based on the association between the person and the business or profession. Thus an example such as Ayu di Tante Merry ‘Ayu is at Aunt Merry’ can be interpreted


either as ‘Ayu is at Aunt Merry’s house’ or ‘Ayu is at Aunt Merry’s shop/café’ depending on the context of utterance and what the speech participants associate Aunt Merry with or know her by. Similarly, Ayu di tukang sate ‘Ayu is at the sate seller’, I-implicates that she is either buying some satays or is simply chatting with him, at the usual place known as the satay seller’s post, and Ayu di dokter gigi ‘Ayu is at the dentist’ I-implicates that she is at the place known as the dentist’s practice, having a dental treatment.

The occurrence of di with human Trajector and human Landmark observes the usual tendency in prepositional relations for the Landmark to be thought of as stationary. Thus the following examples are all unacceptable because the Landmark is associated with motion.

(87) a. *John di tukang becak ‘Ayu is at the rickshaw driver’s (house or rickshaw pool)’.

b. *John di sopir bis ‘Ayu is at the bus driver’s (house or bus stop or depot)’.

The meaning ‘X is associated with person Y’ also obtains when the Trajector is non-human but animate, as in (88a). Here, di Yul I-implicates ‘at Yul’s place and is under her care’. The added element of interpretation in this case is derived from our knowledge about animals such as cats, which are commonly kept as pets by humans. The fact that this interpretation does not constitute a distinct meaning is indicated by the acceptability of (88b) where the non-human and human Trajectors can co-occur without creating an anomaly.

(88) a. Kucing-mu di Yul. cat-2Sg.POSS LOC 1Sg Lit. ‘Your cat is at Yul.’ ‘Your cat is at Yul’s.’ +> at Yul’s place.

b. Kucingmu dan adikmu ada di Yul. ‘Your cat and your younger sibling are with Yul.’

When the Trajector is a non-human concrete entity as in (89), the Landmark is not associated with their place in terms of their dwelling or workplace, but rather, with the person herself/himself. The location of the person may not necessarily be identical to the location of the Trajector at the time of utterance. It is sufficient that the Landmark is identified as the person who may keep, care for, or control the Trajector. The following is an attested example from a conversation between two friends. Here the Landmark is the person who keeps the money, but the money itself may be with her or left at her home or somewhere else. Thus the utterance only Q-implicates ‘not anyone else’.

(89) Duit-nya Mbak Novi ada di saya. money-DEF Mbak Novi be LOC 1Sg Lit. ‘Ms Novi’s money is on me.’ ‘Your money is with me.’ +> not with anyone else

Typically, in this variant of the use, the Landmark is objectively larger or is construed as being larger than the Trajector. Notice in (90) that an object such as a piece of land cannot be located with respect to humans since humans are typically thought of as being smaller than the land. Also, land is an immovable entity, whereas humans are mobile, thus reversing the usual tendency in prepositional relations for the Trajector to be more mobile

64 Chapter 3

than the Landmark. It would be odd to use (90) to suggest that one’s land is under the control of (has been or confiscated by) other people.

(90) *Tanah-mu di mereka. land-2Sg.POSS LOC 3Pl Lit. ‘Your land is on them.’ ‘Your land is with them.’

To suggest the idea of control, one would have to say something like Tanahmu di tangan mereka ‘your land is in their hands’, the control implication being metaphorically expressed through a body part (the hand stands for power), similar to the English expression ‘in someone’s hand’, e.g. ‘Your land is in their hands.’ Another example of this metaphor is given in (91).

(91) Nyawa memang di tangan Sang Pencipta life indeed LOC hand DEF creator ‘(Our) lives are indeed in the hands of the Creator.’ (W/E-MUSI)

The following are interpretations of some occurrences of di with human Landmarks.

X is an attribute/behaviour of person Y (82) X at the place of person Y: Person X at person Y’s home (83, 84) Animal X at person Y’s place (88) X is with person Y: Money kept by a person (89)

The meaning of di with human Landmarks is specified as follows:

Di2: X is associated with person Y

3.3.2 Di in temporal phrases

As with the occurrences of di with human Landmarks, temporal use is either not recommended by previous studies (Chaer 1990, Li 1976) or is considered a recent development (Slametmuljana 1957, Lapoliwa 1992, Sneddon 1996). All studies examined specify that, where there is a reference to time, pada should be used. Sneddon (1996:191) mentions not only that the temporal use of di is on the increase but that it is considered by some speakers as substandard: ‘There is an increasing tendency for di to be used for some references to time, including before the words hari ‘day’, bulan ‘month’, tahun ‘year’ followed by a proper noun, although some people regard the use of di here as substandard.’ Interestingly, this remark was also expressed four years earlier by Lapoliwa (1992:51), and 30 years earlier by Slametmuljana (1957). However, as there is yet no evidence for this assumption, it is difficult to judge whether this use has indeed been a growing tendency or whether it has in fact been an acceptable use but of low frequency, and therefore has not received much attention. As an interesting comparison, Roolvink, whose study is based on written data, clearly states that temporal use is found in modern Malay but not in classical Malay (1948:87). If he is correct, then we have at least an indication that the use began to develop in modern Malay. However, it remains that we have not much knowledge of this development. Moreover, it seems that attention has so far been focused on a narrow


interpretation of what constitutes temporal use, namely, on occurrences of di with nouns referring to calendrical and clock time. Hardly any attention is given to other temporal phrases, including those that are conventionalized.

As with the use with human Landmarks, I argue that the temporal use of di manifests just one meaning, which is an extension of the general spatial meaning, namely, that it is used to locate an event with respect to a time, treating time as location. The spatial notion of ‘coincidence’ is thus understood as ‘sameness of time’ (Wierzbicka 1993:438). In this use, the Trajector is usually an event occurring at the same time as what is specified in the Landmark, suggesting the meaning ‘Event X happens at the same time as time Y’. Whether the event is construed as punctual (and hence can be conceptualized as a point) or durative (and can be conceptualized as a Path) is of no particular importance as these are different interpretations of the same meaning. I will also argue that in this use, di and pada have the same meaning and mostly generate the same interpretations. The difference between the two is in the degree of formality each evokes and in the conventionalization of certain expressions.

Before I discuss the interpretations of the temporal use of di any further, it would be necessary to examine Sneddon’s statement that temporal use is considered substandard, to see what might be implied by this statement. The notion of ‘substandard’ suggests that the use does not conform to the institutionalized, prescribed, standard form. If indeed temporal di is not standard, then one (and perhaps the simplest) way of confirming that is by consulting the reference text, the Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia ‘Standard Indonesian Grammar’, written by some of the key players in the standardization process of Indonesian and published for the first time in 1988. In fact, this reference includes di as a temporal preposition under the section ‘temporal adverbials’, and presents the following example.

(92) Di saat itu kita belum memiliki teknologi canggih. LOC time that 1Pl IMPERF possess technology sophisticated ‘At that time we didn’t have sophisticated technology.’ (Moeliono and

Dardjowidjojo 1988:297)

This grammar textbook only gives the above example and does not provide any explanation at all about the use.

A second option, which is well beyond the scope of this study, would be to examine the kind of discourse most associated with the standard variety, namely, that used by educated Indonesians in formal settings, to see whether temporal use occurs, and if so, to what extent it is common. Although the pool of data collected for this study contains some examples of such a discourse, the portion that strictly meets these requirements would be too small for this purpose.

The third option is to return to the statement put forth by Slametmuljana, Chaer, and Sneddon, claiming that temporal di has been on the increase. This statement implies that the use is a recent development (although we do not have a clear idea how recent). Recall that all previous accounts recommend pada as the appropriate preposition for time. If one follows this view, then one can assume that at some stage, pada must have been the only available preposition for time. If this assumption is correct, then we should be able to substitute all instances of temporal di with it. However, if we examine some conventional expressions, substitution is not always possible. For example, pada in (93b) is awkward (or accepted by some speakers with hesitation), and in (94b) it is totally unacceptable.

66 Chapter 3

(93) a. Masyarakat perlu di-beri penyuluhan yang terus-menerus community need PASS-give information REL continuous-RDP

tentang perlu-nya perlindungan terhadap kemungkinan penyakit yang about need-DEF protection against possibility disease REL

akan timbul di kemudian hari. FUT emerge LOC later day ‘People need to be given continuous reminder about the need for a protection

against the possibility of contracting diseases at a later date.’ (W/E-DAMP)

b. ??Masyarakat perlu diberi penyuluhan yang terus-menerus tentang perlunya perlindungan terhadap kemungkinan penyakit yang akan timbul pada kemudian hari.

(94) a. Nah, agar tidak menyesal di belakang hari, konsumen so in.order.that NEG regret LOC behind day consumer

jamu perlu mencermati beberapa hal berikut. jamu need pay.attention a.few matter as.follows ‘So, to avoid regrets at a later date, consumers of jamu need to pay attention

to the following things.’ (W/P-LANG)

b. *Nah, agar tidak menyesal pada belakang hari, konsumen jamu perlu mencermati beberapa hal berikut.

The awkwardness in (93b) may come from the fact that the phrase pada kemudian hari is commonly used in its literal sense to refer to ‘the following day’, and not ‘in the future’. Thus pada in this case is similar to di in reflecting the conceptualization of time as a point. Di, on the other hand, has been conventionally assigned to these metaphorical expressions to refer to future time.

Examples like these demonstrate that, first, the temporal use of di may not be a recent development, given that conventional expressions evolve from repeated use by the community of speakers over a long period of time, such that they become fixed and considered as part of the standard lexicon. Secondly, both prepositions may have been concurrently used for temporal relations, but are assigned to different domains, one non-literal and the other literal, given that di and pada are not always inter-substitutable. Moreover, as Lapoliwa (1992:51) observes, the phrases di pukul 6.00 ‘at 6 o’clock’ and di tanggal 1 Maret ‘on the 1st of March’ do not seem to occur at all, which suggests that even though di also occurs in literal use, some time phrases involving pukul ‘hour, o’clock’ and tanggal ‘date’ remain outside its current scope of use and are usually preceded by pada. A possible reason why instances of di with pukul are not attested may be that di pukul sounds identical with the passive verb dipukul ‘be hit’ (the example in the previous chapter with ditusuk ‘be stabbed’ has a similar motivation, see §2.2.2). The case with tanggal remains unclear, however.

The occurrences of di in expressions such as (93a) and (94a) suggests the conceptualization of time as unbounded. Di kemudian hari ‘at a later date, in the future’ shows a non-literal meaning of ‘on the following day’, thus the day after represents the future, while di belakang hari, which literally means ‘at a day behind’ also suggests ‘at a later date, in the future’ but views the future as something which is behind. And while both expressions may have a similar connotation, di belakang hari tends to have a negative


connotation (e.g. menyesal ‘regret’ in (94a)). Hence the different conceptualizations of the future reflect the different connotations: something which is behind cannot be seen and is therefore uncontrollable and more likely to have a negative impact on the person, while something which is in front does not evoke the same implication. Another similar expression, di masa depan (also pada masa depan) ‘in future time (literally, ‘in the time in front’)’, also treats time as being in front, and like di kemudian hari, it does not seem to imply negative events or outcomes. The contrast between pada and di referring to the future can be summarized as follows:

Literal versus metaphorical: Pada kemudian hari (literal): on the following day, the next day Di kemudian hari (non-literal): at a later date, in the future

Negative connotation versus neutral connotation: Di kemudian hari (non-literal): neutral Di masa depan (literal): neutral Pada masa depan (literal): neutral Di belakang hari (non-literal): lit. ‘at the day behind’ negative

*Pada belakang hari

Having argued that the assumption of temporal use of di as substandard is not totally warranted, I shall now show that in temporal use, di basically suggests the notion of ‘sameness of time’, that is, it suggests that the event mentioned as the Trajector takes place at the same time as the time mentioned as the Landmark. This is regardless of whether in other contexts the temporal Landmark can be thought of as either bounded, unbounded, or as a point. For example, in (95a) below, di simply suggests that the event of stealing happens at the same time as the chatting. The fact that chatting can be considered independently as bounded time (that is, it has a beginning and an end) is not of relevance here. Pada is also an acceptable alternative, as shown in (95b).

(95) a. Sepeda motor-nya di-curi orang di saat dia sedang bike motor-3Sg.POSS PASS-steal person LOC time 3Sg IMPERF

berbincang-bincang dengan teman-nya. chat-RDP with friend-3Sg.POSS Lit. ‘Her/his motorbike was stolen at the moment that s/he was chatting with

her/his friend.’ ‘Her/his motorbike was stolen when s/he was chatting with her/his friend.’

(Lapoliwa 1992:51)

b. Sepeda motornya dicuri orang pada saat dia sedang berbincang-bincang dengan temannya.

A similar example is shown in (96a). Here the phrase musim kemarau ‘dry season’ can, in other contexts, suggest a bounded time, for example it can occur with the preposition selama ‘during’ in Bunga kopi mekar selama musim kemarau ‘the coffee flowers bloom during the dry season’. However, the use of di implicates ‘a particular time of the year’ (namely, the time when the coffee flowers bloom), and not ‘during this time’. Pada is also acceptable in this example, as seen in (96b).

68 Chapter 3

(96) a. Ketika angin tenggara bertiup dingin menyapu harum bunga when wind southeast blow cool sweep fragrance flower

kopi yang selalu mekar di musim kemarau. coffee REL always bloom LOC season dry.season ‘When the southeast wind blows with chill, sweeping the fragrance from

the flowers of the coffee plants which always come into full bloom in the dry season.’ +> at that particular time of the year (Tohari 1982:11)

b. Ketika angin tenggara bertiup dingin menyapu harum bunga kopi yang selalu mekar pada musim kemarau.

A further illustration is given in (97a) and (98a) where di treats temporal nouns such as tahun ‘year’ and bulan ‘month’ as temporal points rather than time spans. Thus the fact that a year or month can also be viewed as a time span does not enter into the interpretation of di here. Both examples Q-implicate ‘not any other time’. Pada is also an alternative, as shown in (97b) and (98b).

(97) a. Karir-nya sebagai diplomat pada dinas luar negeri career-3Sg.POSS as diplomat LOC office outside country

di-mulai di tahun 1948. PASS-begin LOC year 1948 ‘His/her career as a diplomat began in 1948.’ +> not in any other year

(Ramlan 1980:66)

b. Karirnya sebagai diplomat pada dinas luar negeri dimulai pada tahun 1948.

(98) a. Seminar itu akan di-adakan di bulan April. seminar that FUT PASS-hold LOC month April ‘The seminar will be held in April.’ +> not in any other month

(Lapoliwa 1992:51)

b. Seminar itu akan diadakan pada bulan April.

A contextual variant is shown in (99a). In this example, the activity that constitutes the Trajector (breathing exercises) is suggested as occurring at two different time points (the afternoon and the time before bed).

(99) a. Salah.satu cara non-obat adalah melalui latihan pernapasan one.of method non-medical be through exercise breathing

yang di-lakukan selama 5–10 menit, baik di siang hari REL PASS-do for 5–10 minute both LOC noon day

maupun sebelum tidur. as.well.as before sleep ‘One of non-medical methods is breathing exercises which are done for 5–10

minutes, in the afternoon and before going to bed.’ +> not in the morning or any other times of the day. (W/P-LATI)

b. Salah satu latihan non-obat adalah melalui latihan pernapasan yang dilakukan selama 5–10 menit, baik pada siang hari maupun sebelum tidur.


With the exception of (93b) and (94b), di in all of the preceding examples can be substituted with pada, showing that in temporal use they have the same meaning and generate the same interpretations. The only difference is that pada makes the utterance sound formal. It will be shown in the next chapter that formality is one of the distinguishing features of pada. Given that the notion ‘standard’ is primarily associated with formal contexts, it is hardly surprising that the temporal use of di is judged as being substandard. In fact, temporal use is probably not the only one that is considered substandard. Other uses, such as di with human Landmarks, which is not recommended by prescriptivists but occurs nonetheless, would probably be judged in the same way by some native speakers.

In summary, we have seen that the main distinction between the temporal di and pada is in the literal/non-literal connotation referring to an unspecified future time. In literal instances of use, di can be replaced with pada, while in non-literal ones it cannot. The fact that three different scholars at different times in the last three decades state that the temporal use of di is on the increase does not at all prove that di was never used temporally in the first place. Their statement merely indicates that the literal use has been encroaching on the literal uses of pada. Nonetheless, the encroachment is not complete as there are contexts, such as with pukul and tanggal, where di has not been attested. To what extent the encroachment has been established would be subject of a further study.

All that has been mentioned by either Sneddon, Slametmuljana, or Lapoliwa is noteworthy for the following reasons. First, it indicates that the recency of the temporal meaning is uncertain. Secondly, the judgement as substandard suggests that speakers have assigned temporal use of di to informal contexts, and reserve pada for formal contexts.6

Below are some interpretations of the temporal use of di.

Event X happens at the same time as unbounded/bounded time Y To regret something in the future (93a) Contracting diseases in the future (94a) Theft occurring at the same time as the time a person chatting (95a). Flowers blooming at a particular time of the year (96a). Career begins in a particular year (97a). Seminar held in a particular month (98a).

Event X happens during time Y1 and Y2 Exercises carried out at two particular times of the day (99a).

The temporal meaning of di, then, is specified as follows.

Di3: Event X happens at the same time as time Y

3.3.3 Di with abstract Landmarks

Like the temporal use, occurrences of di with abstract Landmarks constitute one meaning, namely, for indicating that an abstract concept (non-spatial entity), other than time, is being treated as location. This use is also an extension of the spatial meaning

6 I consider formality to be a matter of degree, hence my use of the terms ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ here

should not be taken as two polarized notions.

70 Chapter 3

requiring the Trajector to be coincident with the Landmark. Coincidence in this case is understood in an abstract sense as association between an abstract Trajector and an abstract Landmark, or between an abstract Trajector and a spatial Landmark.

As with the previous meanings, the abstract meaning of di generates several interpretations depending on context. It is through these interpretations that the relations between abstract meanings and the other two meanings can be observed. That is, notions related to the conceptualization of the entities in the prepositional relation in spatial and temporal uses, such as ‘containment’, ‘contact’ and ‘boundedness’, can also be applied to the abstract use, as will be shown in the examples later in this section.

Previous studies either do not recommend that di be used in the abstract use or assume that this use does not occur, much the same as they account for occurrences with human and temporal Landmarks. Slametmuljana’s remark is representative in this regard (1957:171):

Dalam bahasa Indonesia sekarang, djika di depan kata jang sungguh-sungguh menyatakan tempat, galibnya dipakai kata perangkai di; tetapi djika mengandung arti kiasan, baik di depan kata jang menjatakan tempat maupun bukan, biasanja dipakai kata perangkai pada. ‘In today’s Indonesian, di should be used before a word denoting an actual place. If the word is used non-literally, whether it suggests a place or not, pada is commonly used.’

An exception is Ramlan (1980:92) who mentions that di can denote a location which tidak secara khusus menyatakan tempat ‘does not specifically denote a place’, although the only example given of an abstract Landmark is one which is ambiguous between spatial and abstract, as in (100). Dinas perkreditan desa ‘village credit office’ in this example is ambiguous between ‘the building which houses the village credit office’ and ‘village credit office as an institution’.

(100) Saya sudah bekerja di dinas perkreditan desa di Kebumen. 1Sg PERF work LOC office credit village LOC Kebumen ‘I have worked at the village credit office in Kebumen.’ (Ramlan 1980:92)

According to Ramlan, di can denote either ‘place’ or ‘not an actual place’, whereas pada can denote only the latter. This is why the first occurrence of di above can be replaced by pada, as in (101a), whereas the second cannot, as in (101b).

(101) a. Saya sudah bekerja pada dinas perkreditan desa di Kebumen. (Ramlan 1980:92)

b. Saya sudah bekerja pada dinas perkreditan desa *pada Kebumen.

The lack of mention of abstract Landmarks is surprising, considering that not only is the abstract use of di common but it is also the only suitable preposition in some fixed expressions. For example, there is no alternative way of referring to someone being at a certain level at school other than with di, as we have seen previously in (44a). A similar example is given in (102a). Neither pada nor dalam can occur here, as seen in (102b) and (102c) respectively.

(102) a. Nyonya Murni datang ke ruang konsultasi psikologi bersama Mrs Murni come DIR room consultation psychology with


Aryo, anak-nya yang saat itu duduk di kelas 1 SMP. Aryo son-3Sg.POSS REL time that sit LOC class 1 junior.high.school ‘Mrs Murni came to the psychologist’s consulting room with her son Aryo

who at the time was in the first year of junior high school.’ (W/E-ANAK)

b. *Nyonya Murni datang ke ruang konsultasi psikologi bersama Aryo, anaknya yang saat itu duduk pada kelas 1 SMP.

c. *Nyonya Murni datang ke ruang konsultasi psikologi bersama Aryo, anaknya yang saat itu duduk dalam kelas 1 SMP.

Di is also the only preposition to occur in idiomatic expressions such as in (103), in which the Landmarks mata ‘eye’ and hati ‘heart’ stand for visibility and emotion, respectively, and in (104), in which tangan ‘hand’ metaphorically stands for power. Neither pada nor dalam would be an acceptable substitute here.

(103) a. jauh di mata dekat di hati far LOC eye near LOC heart Lit. ‘far in the eyes close in the heart’ ‘Far away but not forgotten.’

b. *jauh pada mata dekat pada hati

c. *jauh dalam mata dekat dalam hati

(104) a. Kekuasaan Pemerintah negara ada di tangan rakyat. power government country exist LOC hand people ‘The power of the government is in the hands of the people.’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:897).

b. *Kekuasaan Pemerintah negara ada pada tangan rakyat.

c. *Kekuasaan Pemerintah negara ada dalam tangan rakyat.

If Ramlan is correct in saying that a Landmark such as dinas perkreditan desa in (101) can be substituted by pada, then we should be able to do the same to similar Landmarks—similar in the sense that they have dual meanings, one spatial and the other abstract. For example, in (105a) below, Horison can refer to the literary journal itself (spatial), or, the metonymic extension, the institution (abstract, ‘not an actual place’). However, as shown in (105b), pada is not an acceptable substitute.

(105) a. Di Horison anda tahu .. e .. yang duduk di sana LOC Horison 2Pl know REL sit LOC there

sebagai redaksi adalah .. antara lain HB Jassin as editor be among other HB Jassin ‘In Horison you know .. er .. those in the editorial board are .. among others,

HB Jassin.’ (S/E-PMKI)

b. *Pada Horison anda tahu, .. e .. yang duduk di sana sebagai redaksi .. antara lain HB Jassin.

What seems to sanction the occurrence of di in (101) then, is not so much that the Landmark is not an actual place as the fact that the interpretation of the utterance is closely tied to the verb bekerja ‘work’ which precedes the preposition. The ‘phrasal verb’ bekerja

72 Chapter 3

pada does not simply indicate one’s place of work but also implicates an asymmetrical relationship between an employer and employee. If we replace pada with di, this inference dissolves. Thus one can say bekerja di rumah ‘work at home’ but *bekerja pada rumah does not make sense since working at home does not implicate the same relationship between the Trajector and Landmark. A relationship not perceived as asymmetrical (e.g. a daughter working for her mother) is also odd if expressed with pada, as in (106a) for example. The same relationship expressed with di in (106b) is simply nonsensical. Untuk ‘for’ in (106c) implicates that Rina works for free (doing her mother a favour). The only option in this case is to select sama ‘with’ which suggests that the mother is the person Rina works for, but with whom she is not in an asymmetrical work relation with.

(106) a. *Rina bekerja pada ibu-nya. Rina work LOC mother-3Sg.POSS ‘Rina works for her mother.’

b. *Rina bekerja di ibunya. ‘Rina works at her mother.’

c. Rina bekerja untuk ibunya. ‘Rina works for her mother.’ +> doing her mother a favour

d. Rina bekerja sama ibunya. ‘Rina works with her mother.’ +> Rina works for her mother, or she has

a joint business with her mother.

Thus pada in (105b) is odd because the context implies none of these things. The person mentioned in the discourse (HB Jassin) is, in reality, one of the key persons responsible for the publication of the literary journal Horison, hence his relation to the journal is not asymmetrical at all. In fact, the journal can be said to be under him (Horison di bawah Jassin ‘Horison under Jassin’).

An abstract use may suggest a relation between an abstract Trajector and abstract Landmark such as shown in (107a) and (108b). In these examples public domains such as the mass media, politics, and the arts can be thought of as being the delimiters for the activities associated with them, extending the notion of physical boundedness to ‘delimitation’. Thus in (107a), the activity of reporting is delimited within the domain of mass media, while in (108b), the ‘active’ state of development (e.g. as shown by the nominalized verb perkembangan ‘development’ in (108a)) is delimited within the domain of politics and the arts. Both examples can also occur with pada, as shown in (107b) and (108b).

(107) a. Banyak di-beritakan di media massa mengenai hiruk.pikuk much PASS-report LOC media mass about commotion

industri otomotif yang di-nilai tidak efisien dan menghasilkan industry automotive REL PASS-view NEG efficient and produce

output berupa mobil dengan harga yang tinggi. output in.form.of vehicle with price REL high ‘Much has been reported in the mass media about the automotive industry

which is seen as being inefficient and producing as output vehicles which are too expensive.’ (W/E-MOBN)


b. Banyak diberitakan pada media massa mengenai hiruk pikuk industri otomotif yang dinilai tidak efisien dan menghasilkan output berupa mobil dengan harga tinggi.

(108) a. Nah, .. ternyata perkembangan .. di bidang politik juga ada so it.turns.out development LOC field politics also exist

pengaruh-nya terhadap perkembangan di bidang kesenian ya. impact-1Sg.POSS against development LOC field arts right ‘So .. it turns out that development .. in the political sphere also has an impact

on the development in the arts, right.’ (S/E-PMKI)

b. Nah, ternyata perkembangan pada bidang politik juga ada pengaruhnya terhadap perkembangan pada bidang kesenian ya.

Alternatively, the Trajector can be a concrete entity located with respect to an abstract Landmark. In (109a), cultural events (berbagai kesempatan ‘various events’) can be thought of as bounded time, within which the Trajector tumpeng ‘cone-shaped ceremonial rice’, representing a cultural tradition, is located. This instance of use can be interpreted as being temporal-like in the sense that the Trajector (presenting a tumpeng) is an activity which occurs during the time mentioned in the Landmark (cultural events), similar to the temporal use indicating that ‘Event X happens some time during bounded time Y’, as mentioned in the preceding section. Here also, di can be substituted with pada, as shown in (109b).

(109) a. Tumpeng dapat di-sajikan di berbagai kesempatan tanpa tumpeng can PASS-present LOC various occasion without

memandang agama, ras, suku, yang tentu.saja sangat sesuai consider religion race ethnicity REL of.course very suitable

dengan sifat bangsa Indonesia. with character nation Indonesia ‘Tumpeng (ceremonial rice) can be presented on various occasions regardless

of one’s religion, race, ethnicity, which accords with the Indonesian character.’ (W/E-NASI)

b. Tumpeng dapat disajikan pada berbagai kesempatan tanpa memandang agama, ras, suku, yang tentu saja sangat sesuai dengan sifat bangsa Indonesia.

In (110) and (111), abstract things such as a telephone number and a radio band, respectively, are treated as contact points for humans, extending the notion of physical contact to abstract contact. Di in this case merely suggests that the Landmarks are abstract reference points for the Trajector. These examples are from the closing of an open-university lecture broadcast on radio. Di in both examples Q-implicates something like ‘this contact point, not any other’.

(110) a. Anda bisa menghubungi kami di 740-3588. 2Pl can contact 1Pl LOC 740-3588 ‘You can contact us on 740-3588.’ +> this telephone number,

not any other (S/E-TUTO)

b. Anda bisa menghubungi kami pada 740-3588.

74 Chapter 3

(111) a. dan tutor anda akan menjawab-nya di gelombang ini juga. and tutor 2Pl FUT answer-3Sg LOC wave this also ‘and your tutor will answer it on this same band.’ +> same radio channel,

not any other (S/E-TUTO)

b. dan tutor anda akan menjawabnya pada gelombang ini juga.

To conclude, the fact that the abstract use of di is hardly accounted for in previous studies may have stemmed from the assumption that a preposition should be characterized with reference to one broad meaning. In this case, di has been noted as a preposition which essentially denotes spatial relations, while pada denotes non-spatial relations. This assumption is easily put into question by evidence from the examples above.

A summary of the contextual possibilities of the abstract meaning is given below:

Person working in an institution: Journalists/writers in a publishing house (105)

Activity in public domains (public domains as ‘container’ for activities): Reporting in mass media (107) Development in politics and the arts (108)

Event E occurring some time during bounded time T Cultural practice occurring at a cultural event (109)

Humans at abstract contact points: Contact through a telephone number (110) Contact through a radio broadcast (111)

The use with abstract Landmarks is specified as follows:

Di4: X is associated with abstract concept Y

To conclude the semantic description, I wish to return to points made in the previous studies. First, there is no doubt that di denotes spatial locations but a broad definition such as ‘a place where something is located’ is too general to be able to distinguish di from pada and dalam. Secondly, the assumption that di cannot occur with human, abstract, and temporal Landmarks may have been driven by the view that a preposition should be characterized in terms of one broad meaning only. This chapter has shown that occurrences with human, temporal, and abstract Landmarks constitute three distinct extensions of the general spatial meaning in Di1 (‘X occupies the same portion of space as Y’).

This chapter has shown that, although di is primarily used to express static relations, it can also occur in dynamic contexts. The dynamic reading is facilitated primarily by the co-occurrence of di with verbs indicating or presupposing motion, or a change of location (e.g. menitipkan ‘leave something or somebody with someone’), or is inferable from general knowledge. I noted also that the various occurrences of di are related not only at the level of meaning, but also at the level of interpretation in that notions applicable to the contextual variations of use such as coincidence, containment, contact, support, and so on, are also applicable to non-spatial uses. Figure 3.1 shows a summary of the relation between the four meanings and their contextual interpretations.


Figure 3.1: Summary of the meanings of di

3.4 Compound prepositions with di

As mentioned at the beginning, di can occur with a locational noun to form a compound preposition, such as di atas ‘on top of’, di bawah ‘below, under’, di dalam ‘inside’, and so on. Even though these forms are common, there is little explanation as to possible factors that motivate speakers to use them. The general view is that compounds add specificity to an utterance; that is, by using a compound an intended location is rendered more specific. In this section I examine this claim and argue that this assumption is only partially correct. I shall show that while some compound forms may indeed afford greater specificity, some others simply render explicit what is already implicated by default. In the latter case, speakers’ use of compounds reflects a sense of formality or, when they are alternated with the simple form di, gives stylistic effects to an utterance.

To begin, consider the following statement from Chaer (1990:27), which is repre-sentative of the prevailing view (also see Ramlan 1980:67).

Untuk menyatakan ‘tempat berada’ dengan lebih tepat dan lebih seksama kata depan di dapat diikuti dengan kata yang menunjukkan bagian dari tempat itu yang dimaksud. Umpamanya kata-kata atas, dalam dan samping pada contoh berikut:

Bukumu saya letakkan di atas meja. Pakaian itu disimpan ibu di dalam lemari. Mereka bermain di samping rumah kami. (bold type italicized in original)

‘To denote ‘location’ more specifically and more accurately the preposition di can be followed by a word refering to the part of that intended location. Consider for example, the words atas ‘top’, dalam ‘inside’ and samping ‘beside’ in the following:

Bukumu saya letakkan di atas meja. ‘I put your book on top of the table.’ Pakaian itu disimpan ibu di dalam lemari. ‘Mother put the clothes inside the wardrobe.’ Mereka bermain di samping rumah kami. ‘They were playing beside (lit. ‘on the side of’) our house.’’

Di1: X occupies the same portion of physical space as Y

Di2: X is associated

with person Y

Di3: Event X happens at the same time as time Y

Di4: X is associated with abstract concept Y

76 Chapter 3

First, let us examine the three examples from Chaer above. In the first and second examples, the compound forms di atas ‘on top of’ and di dalam ‘on the inside of’ add entailed specific information which repeats as the implicated information expressible with di (since di can already suggest these default interpretations). Our common knowledge of the functional interaction between objects such as books and tables, clothes and wardrobes, combined with the presence of the verbs (letakkan ‘place, put’ in the first example, and disimpan ‘be kept, be stored’ in the second example) rules out the possibility that the Trajector may be anywhere else but on the flat upper surface of the table and inside the enclosed interior region of the wardrobe respectively. These default inferences obtain unless the speaker specifies otherwise. In cases such as these, the compounds merely add formality to the utterance by rendering explicit what are already stereotypically implicated. However, Chaer’s third example is different from the previous two in that the form di samping ‘at the side of, beside’ indeed adds more specific details about the position of the Trajector in relation to the Landmark. Without the locational noun samping ‘side’ the phrase di rumah can be interpreted as anywhere inside or outside the house, because di does not entail di samping ‘at the side of, beside’.

Sneddon (1996:190) notes that some locational nouns such as atas and dalam are omissible with locations that are generally understood. For example, di atas meja ‘on top of the table’ can be expressed as di meja ‘on the table’, and di dalam laci as di laci ‘in the drawer’. In other cases, the locational nouns are necessary, e.g. di bawah ‘under, below’. While this statement may capture the general tendency in the use of compounds, there are two aspects of compound use that are not clarified.

First, the statement does not explain what is meant by a location being ‘normally understood’. I argue that, like Chaer’s first and second examples, these ‘known’ locations are essentially stereotypical Trajector-Landmark configurations, which can be expressed by di alone. Sneddon’s account also poses a crucial question about speakers’ use of compounds, namely that, if some locational nouns can be dropped, then what are the possible reasons for speakers attaching the locational noun in some cases while not in others, even when the relations represent stereotypical configurations. After all, one would assume that the shorter form (namely, the simple preposition di) would be more economical to use in the sense that it requires less effort in speech and writing. As will be proposed below, compound use is driven not only by the desire to be specific, but is also motivated by other reasons that are pragmatic and sociolinguistic.

Secondly, Sneddon’s statement does not mention which other locational nouns are not optional other than bawah. In short, the statement fails to explain why some locational nouns are ‘known’ while others are not.

In the following I distinguish between between instances of compound use that add specific information and those that simply render explicit what is stereotypically implicated.

3.4.1 Compounds for indicating specificity

The existence of alternative spatial expressions usually implicates a contrast between a stereotypical and a marked situation. For instance, the use of ‘on top of’ rather than ‘on’ in English implicates some unusual viewing angle or a deviation from the direct-contact relation suggested by ‘on’. Levinson refers to this contrast as the M-Principle (adapted


from Grice’s first and fourth Maxims of Manner ‘avoid obscurity, avoid prolixity’). The use of a compound form of di for indicating specificity can be considered within this light.

Specificity can be shown by the inference generated. The selected compound form usually implicates that another relation does not apply (through the Gricean Q-Principle under the heuristic ‘what is saliently not said, is not the case’). For instance, di dalam ‘inside’ may implicate tidak di luar ‘not outside’, di atas ‘on top of’ may implicate tidak di bawah ‘not underneath’, di samping ‘on the side of’, or di dalam ‘inside’, and so on. The compound cannot be substituted with the simple form without resulting in a different inference, and in spatial use, the simple form, whose spatial meaning is general, usually suggests a larger spatial scope than the compound. Consider the following example from a procedural text on how to install an extra baggage capsule on the car roof rack. The compound di atas ‘on top of’ is in this case necessary for specifying that the Trajector is not inside the Landmark’s interior region or anywhere else. Without the noun atas ‘top’, the Trajector could be interpreted as being, for instance, inside, behind, or on the side of the car.

(112) Apabila semua telah terpasang, tinggal memasang kaki when all PERF be.installed remain install foot

penyangga di atas mobil. support LOC top car ‘When all is done, what remains is to install the supporting legs on top of

the car.’ +> not underneath, behind, inside, or on the side (S/P-BAGA)

Compare with (113), taken from a text about the danger of leaving a child in a car, in which only the simple form is selected. From our knowledge about the functional relation between car and people, di I-implicates ‘the interior region of the car’. Replacing di with the compound di dalam here is possible but does not add extra information about the spatial configuration. The compound form would merely render explicit what is already stereotypically implicated.

(113) se-bagian besar di antara kita mengabaikan atau bahkan tak one-part large LOC among 1Pl ignore or even NEG

mengacuhkan pengetahuan dasar tentang kemungkinan-kemungkinan pay.attention knowledge basic about possibility-RDP

bahaya si kecil ketika ia berada di mobil. danger DEF little when 3Sg be LOC car ‘most of us ignore or could not care less about having basic knowledge of

the possible dangers on the little one when s/he is in the car.’ +> inside (W/E-MUSI)

In (114a) the form di belakang ‘behind’ entails tidak di depan ‘not in front’. In this case also, the compound cannot be replaced by di alone, as in (114b), not only because di belakang is more specific than di, but more importantly, because when the simple form di occurs with a human Trajector and a human Landmark, di associates humans with the place they occupy or are known by, so a person cannot simply be spatially associated to another person through an action such as walking. However, either di belakang or di can be dropped, as in (114c). This is because of the verb mengintil ‘follow behind’ already implies the location, therefore the compound merely complements and reinforces the verb

78 Chapter 3

and links the Trajector to the Landmark, and is not an obligatory component of the sentence. This can be taken as evidence that, contrary to Sneddon’s view, optionality is not determined by the familiarity of the location alone.

(114) a. Saya hanya menonton dan ikut mengintil di belakang 1Sg only watch and follow follow.behind LOC behind

orang-orang tua yang membawa jenazah Embah Wedok person-RDP old REL carry dead.body grandparent female

ke kuburan desa. DIR cemetery village ‘I only watched and followed behind the older people who were carrying

the body of my dead grandmother to the village cemetery.’ +> not in front (Kayam 1992:12)

b. *Saya hanya menonton dan ikut mengintil di orang-orang tua yang membawa jenazah Embah Wedok ke kuburan desa.

c. Saya hanya menonton dan ikut mengintil orang-orang tua yang membawa jenazah Embah Wedok ke kuburan desa.

The occurrences of compounds for indicating specific locations can be shown also in contexts where a compound is juxtaposed with the simple form in nested locative expressions.7 Di usually suggests a spatially larger and more general location, while the compound a smaller and more specific location. For example, in (115), di occurs in a relation in which the road is construed as a linear path along which the Trajector traverses, while the compound form di depan ‘in front of’ specifies a particular point along that path.8 This is also a good example of nesting coinciding with compound forms in providing greater specificity.

(115) kalau anda sempat lewat di Jalan Sudirman, persisnya if 2Sg/Pl happen.to pass LOC street Sudirman to.be.exact

di depan kantor gubernur LOC front office governor ‘if you happen to travel along (di) Sudirman street, in front of (di depan)

the governor’s office to be exact’ (W/N-CALO)

Similarly below, di only refers to the town square as a whole, while the compound forms di bawah ‘under’ and di tengah ‘in the middle’ specifies a particular part of the square that constitutes the Trajector’s endpoint.

(116) Di alun-alun, iring-iringan pensiunan yang datang dari LOC town.square.RDP procession.RDP pensioner REL come from

berbagai penjuru itu akan bertemu di bawah beringin various direction that will meet LOC under banyan.tree

7 Nested location is a term used by Langacker (1991:9) to refer to a locative expression where an intended

location is indicated by mentioning other locations of which it is a part. The same notion is mentioned in Talmy (1983:251), Vandeloise (1991:171–173), and Svorou (1994:7–8).

8 A path can be construed as a linearly-organized multiplicity of points (Taylor 1993).


kurung di tengah alun-alun. cage LOC middle town.square ‘At the town square, the procession of pensioners who come from all

sorts of places will meet under (di bawah) the fenced-in banyan tree in the middle of (di tengah) the square.’ (Kayam 1992:7)

These examples illustrate that the use of compounds is obligatory when specific semantic information is to be conveyed. These are cases where the simple form di does not entail the compound form (e.g. di mobil in (113) does not entail di atas mobil, and in (116), di alun-alun does not entail di tengah alun-alun). The locational noun in a compound can be dropped if it co-occurs with a verb that already indicates the location (e.g. in (114), mengintil di belakang ‘follow behind behind’ can be expressed as mengintil ‘follow behind’). The function of the compound in this case is to reinforce the verbal meaning.

3.4.2 Compounds as explicit expressions of default locations

In the following I will show that some instances of compound use merely confirm and render explicit what is already implicated by default through di. These are cases where the location referred to by the compound form is entailed by di. The use of compounds in this case reflects a speaker’s desire to be explicit, rather than providing semantic information. The degree of explicitness depends on one’s intentions, the addressee, and the communicative contexts (Svorou (1994:6). The ensuing discussion will demonstrate that compounds serving this function can be observed in contexts where speakers contrast, emphasize, or confirm a location, as well as where they give instructions, convey a message in writing, or when they want to avoid monotony. These contexts are discussed in turn below.

3.4.2.1 Compounds for contrasting locations

Locations such as ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ are often contrasted in discourse. Because ‘inside’ is one of the possible default interpretations of di, as pointed out earlier this chapter, and because there is a compound form di dalam which corresponds to it, the two forms are often interchanged. Meanwhile di does not, by default, generate an ‘outside’ reading, and therefore a region outside an enclosure, for example, can only be referred to by the compound di luar ‘on the outside of’. In (117a), both the default and non-default locations are expressed with compounds.

(117) a. Setelah tiga bulan, sirikit mulai terlihat rimbun dan siap after three month sirikit begin be.seen leafy and ready

di-tanam di luar maupun di dalam ruangan. PASS-plant LOC outside as.well.as LOC inside room ‘After three months, the sirikit begins to look leafy and is ready to be

planted (either) outside (di luar) as well as inside (di dalam) the room.’ (S/P-SIRI)

b. Setelah tiga bulan, sirikit mulai terlihat rimbun dan siap ditanam di ruangan maupun di luar ruangan.

80 Chapter 3

c. Setelah tiga bulan, sirikit mulai terlihat rimbun dan siap ditanam di dalam maupun di luar ruangan.

In this case, the compound di dalam ‘inside’ suggests a contrast between the default location and an opposite location, and that the opposite location gets mentioned first. When the order is reversed, as in (117b), the simple unmarked di can be selected. Also, because di gives the default reading di dalam ‘inside’, this compound form can also occur first, as in (117c).

A similar case is shown in (118), from a casual conversation in which the speaker is talking about how to assess the behaviour of teachers towards their students and their local community. The unmarked form di here refers to the school as a spatial location and metonymically to the school community, which is the usual interpretation of a minimal expression involving a person as the Trajector and an institution as the Landmark. Meanwhile the compound di luar sekolah refers to the location and community outside the school. Replacing di with a compound form such as di dalam ‘inside’ would make the utterance nonsensical because it would narrow the scope of interpretation and would suggest something like ‘inside the school building’, which is not what is intended here.

(118) D: Nah dia kalau di- di sekolah, gimana, dengan murid. ... Kalau PRT 3Sg when LOC school how with student when

di luar sekolah, bagaimana dengan lingkungan, gitu. LOC outside school how with neighbourhood like that ‘So when s/he is at- at (di) school, how does s/he deal with the students. ...

When s/he is outside (di luar) the school, how does s/he relate to people around her/him, like that.’ (ME/I-107:14)9

Similarly in (119), the Landmark di rumah ‘at home’ is employed in an abstract sense to refer to the stressful situation at home, while di luar rumah ‘outside the home’ refers to the situation outside the home.

(119) Yang lebih mengerikan, menurut Ratna, kalau suami yang REL more horrifying according.to Ratna when husband REL

sedang krisis harga diri itu merasa tertekan oleh situasi IMPERF crisis value self that feel oppressed by situation

di rumah, lalu mencari ‘pengakuan’ di luar rumah. LOC home then search recognition LOC outside home ‘What is more alarming, according to Ratna, is when the husband who is

losing self-confidence feels stressed by the situation at (di) home and then looks for ‘recognition’ outside (di luar) the home.’ (W/E-BILA)

If we replace di with di dalam in this example, the utterance would sound awkward as the phrase situasi di dalam rumah ‘situation inside the house’ implies the kind of atmosphere created by the interior arrangement of the house (e.g. room layout, furnishing). The form di dalam, if it were to be applicable here, would add specificity to the utterance. The fact that di cannot be substituted for by the compound form di dalam suggests that the metaphoric extension from the physical to the social/psychological does not readily pertain with a mere specific expression.

9 Spoken data courtesy of Michael Ewing.


The following example of an abstract relation is the opposite of (117a) in that the simple form gets mentioned first, while the non-default is mentioned second. The speaker is here talking about the political situation in Indonesia during 1970s and mentioning that the emergence of puisi mbeling ‘tongue-in-cheek poetry’ marks the formation of a strong political force outside of formal politics. The phrase di politik ‘in politics’ refers to the abstract location ‘within the political sphere’, while di luar politik ‘outside of politics’ refers to the abstract location outside it.

(120) a. S: Salah.satu kekuatan .. ya .. ya .. – bukan hanya di politik one.of force yes yes NEG only LOC politics

tapi juga kekuatan di luar politik ya. but also force LOC outside politics yes ‘One of the forces .. ok .. ok .. – not only in (di) politics but also forces

outside (di luar) of politics ok.’ (S/E-PMKI)

b. *S: Salah satu kekuatan .. ya .. ya .. – bukan hanya di luar politik tapi juga kekuatan di politik ya.

It is possible in this case to substitute di with di dalam, however, the choice of the simple form suggests that the default is in the first mention. Notice in (120b) that if order of location is reversed, the simple form makes the utterance sound odd.

Another example further confirms this observation. An example from a short story in (121) shows the non-default location (outside the houses) being mentioned first with the compound di luar ‘outside’, followed by the compound di dalam ‘inside’, referring to the inside of houses. The same location is mentioned again with dalam ‘in, inside’. In this example too, it is possible to replace di dalam with di but it would be odd if mentioned as the second location.10

(121) Tapi seperti juga setiap rumah di Jakarta yang mewah but like also every house LOC Jakarta REL luxury

maupun setengah mewah, tak ada seorang as.well.as half luxury NEG be somebody

pun di luar-nya yang betul-betul tahu apa even LOC outside-3Sg.POSS REL really-RDP know what

yang terjadi di dalam-nya. REL happen LOC inside-3Sg.POSS

(1 sentence intervenes)

Begitu pun, lagi-lagi tak ada seorang pun akan tahu peristiwa like.that EMP again-RDP NEG exist someone even will know event

apa saja yang terjadi what any REL happen

10 It is worth mentioning that unlike in isolated sentences, the order of referents in naturally occuring data,

particularly spoken discourse, may or may not be reversed without some modification (e.g. by altering the pronouns). For this reason I hesitate to adjust all of the examples simply to show the possibility of reversal.

82 Chapter 3

dalam rumah itu. LOC house that ‘But like every house in Jakarta which is luxurious or semi-luxurious, no

one outside (di luar) it really knows what goes on inside (di dalam) it. (1 sentence intervenes.) Likewise, again no one will know what kinds of things go on inside (dalam) that house.’ (W/N-WANI)

The preceding examples clearly demonstrate that the selection of compound prepositions is motivated not only by whether or not the location is already known. A Landmark such as the interior region of a house, which, in Sneddon’s account, would be considered a known location, can be referred to by the compound form di dalam for the purpose of contrasting. Moreover, order of mention also determines the choice of form.

3.4.2.2 Compounds for emphasis

Another purpose for selecting compound forms is to give an emphasis to the default location previously mentioned with the simple form. The following example is from a written personal account describing the guilt experienced by the author as a result of refusing to follow her mother’s advice not to go out with the man she had recently met. The excerpt describes her belief that the subsequent problems she encountered are a punishment for her ‘disobedience’. Di appears here as the first mention, followed by dalam (mentioned twice), while the compound form di dalam ‘inside, within’ appears last, all referring to the same abstract Landmark hati ‘heart’.

(122) Walaupun akhir-nya kendaraan kami berhasil ‘di-selamatkan’ although last-DEF vehicle 1Pl succeed PASS-save dan kami dapat melanjutkan and 1Pl can continue

perjalanan di hati saya terbersit ingin pulang saja. trip LOC heart 1Sg come.to.mind want go.home just (1 sentence intervenes)

Selama perjalanan, dalam hati tak henti-hentinya saya during trip LOC heart NEG stop-RDP 1Sg minta maaf kepada Ibu. ask forgiveness DIR mother (1 sentence intervenes)

Sekali lagi, dalam hati (cuma di dalam hati!) saya nyuwun once more LOC heart only LOC inside heart 1Sg ask pangapuro pada Ibu. forgiveness LOC mother ‘Although at last our vehicle was ‘saved’ and we could resume our trip,

in (di) my heart I just wished to go home. Throughout the trip, in (dalam) my heart I never stopped asking my mother

for forgiveness.


Once again, in (dalam) my heart (only within (di dalam) my heart!) did I ask for my mother’s forgiveness.’ (W/N-KUAL)

Here the relations expressed by di, dalam and di dalam all refer to an internalization of feelings. That is, the wish to go home and the request for forgiveness are only expressed internally, thus hati ‘heart’ refers to one’s mind and emotions. All of the prepositions refer to this same Landmark, and although the Trajectors are slightly different (for di, it is the desire to go home, while for dalam and di dalam, it is the desire to ask for forgiveness), they are causally connected. The compound form di dalam is employed in this case to emphasize this internalization of emotions and thoughts.

3.4.2.3 Compounds for confirming default locations

Communication, according to Keller (1989:90), is an act of giving others hints, through linguistic signs, that enable them to go through a process of interpretation in order to discover what it is we as speakers want them to understand. In other words, through what we say we give clues that allow our addressee to interpret our intentions. The addressee’s interpretive attempts, however, may or may not map onto our intentions exactly; they may go beyond what we want them to understand. In the following example, from a casual conversation about speaker E’s fieldwork in a national park in North Sumatra, we can see that by selecting the phrase di hutan ‘in the forest’ the speaker assumes that her addressee will interpret the location as ‘within the boundary of the forest’, which is its default interpretation. However, the phrase can also be interpreted beyond this default as, for example, ‘adjacent to the exterior boundary of the forest’. To confirm that her selected interpretation matches the speaker’s intention, the addressee (speaker N) seeks confirmation by using the compound form di dalam. This form cancels the non-default interpretation.

(123) E: Ya itu waktu di situ tuh. yes that time LOC there that

.. ‘Kan itu .. saya nginep-nya di pos ya. EMP that 1Sg stay-DEF LOC post yes

N: Mm. Mm.

E: Situ ‘kan punya .. kayak wisma 3Pl EMP have like guesthouse

N: Mm. Mm.

E: Itu ya pos <di> .. di hutan situ <XX> di situ. that yes post LOC forest there LOC there

N: <Di> .. di . dalam hutan? LOC-inside forest

E: Iya. Yes

84 Chapter 3

E: ‘Yes, that’s right, it was when I was there. I was staying at the post, right.’ N: ‘Mm.’ E: ‘They have something like a guesthouse.’ N: ‘Mm.’ E: ‘That was the post <in> .. in (di) that forest <XX> over there.’ N: ‘<In> .. in .. side (di dalam) the forest?’ E: ‘Yes.’ (S/N-ENDA)

The compound form di dalam in this case does not suggest the possibility of a non-default reading but rather, it confirms the default interpretation suggested by the unmarked form di.

3.4.2.4 Stylistic effects

We have seen earlier in (122) that a compound form can be alternated with the simple form to refer to the same or a similar Trajector and Landmark, and that the compound serves to emphasize what has already been expressed with the simple form. In other cases, the alternation seems to serve no particular other purpose than stylistics. The following example is from a procedural text on how to treat a sick koi (a type of goldfish). The same Landmark (kolam ‘pond, aquarium’) is mentioned three times in the text, the first with the simple form, the second with a compound form, and the third with the simple form again. The alternation suggests that the selection does not have anything to do with order of mention.

(124) Berapa.lama koi terluka di-pisahkan dari how.long koi wounded PASS-separate from

teman-teman-nya di kolam? friend-RDP-3Sg.POSS LOC pond (3 sentences intervene; same paragraph) Normal berarti mau berenang dengan koi normal mean want swim with koi

lain di dalam kolam. other LOC inside pond (4 paragraphs intervene)

Bila pengobatan di-lakukan di kolam, ada beberapa hal if treatment PASS-do LOC pond be a.few thing yang perlu di-perhatikan. REL need PASS-pay.attention ‘How long should a sick koi be separated from its friends in (di) the pond?’ (3 sentences intervene; same paragraph) Lit. ‘Normal means it wants to swim with other koi inside the pond.’ ‘Normal means it wants to swim with the other koi in (di dalam) the pond.’ (4 paragraphs intervene) ‘If treatment is done in (di) the pond, there are a few things to observe.’ (W/P-KOI)


One could argue that the different verbs determine the selection of form in this example. However, this argument does not hold if we consider that the compound form di dalam can also be substituted by di. I suggest that in cases such as this, the alternation is simply to avoid monotony. The compound form merely makes explicit what is already implicated by the simple form.

3.4.2.5 Compounds, genre, and medium

Explicitness as reflected in the use of compounds may also be driven by the medium and genre through which a message in conveyed. A frequency count in this study shows that compound forms occur more frequently in written discourse than in spoken; moreover, the highest number of tokens is found in written procedural texts, as shown in Figure 3.2.

Narrative Expository Procedural Spoken Written Spoken Written Spoken Written

8 (4.27%)

46 (24.5%)

8 (4.27%)

18 (9.62%)

19 (10.1%)

88 (47.0%)

Figure 3.2: The distribution of compound prepositions across mediums and genres (all tokens totaling 187)11

This distribution is not surprising if we consider, first, the nature of written discourse. In writing one is generally required to be explicit in order to minimize misinterpretation, and compounds can fulfil that requirement.

The following examples are all from written texts. Consider (125), which is taken from a short story. The phrase di atas lantai ‘on the floor’ in (125a) is no more specific than di lantai since the idea of a telephone being located with respect to a floor conjures up, by default, an image of the telephone sitting on the flat surface of the floor. The compound merely makes this interpretation explicit. In speech, the same sentence may be expressed with di alone, as in (125b).

(125) a. Di atas lantai telepon itu masih menjerit-jerit. LOC top floor telephone that IMPERF scream-RDP Lit. ‘On top of the floor the telephone is still screaming.’ ‘On the floor the telephone is still screaming.’ (Ajidarma 1995:70)

b. Di lantai telepon itu masih menjerit-jerit.

Similarly in (126a), di atas lincak ‘on the lincak’ can be equally conveyed by di lincak (126b) to convey the image of a person sitting on a bamboo chair, since both forms I-implicate ‘the upper flat most functional part of the chair’.

(126) a. Istri Santayib mendekati suami-nya yang sedang duduk wife Santayib approach husband-3Sg.POSS REL IMPERF sit

11 The figures do not include compound forms such as di sini ‘here’, di situ ‘there’, di sana ‘over there’, or

di mana ‘where’.

86 Chapter 3

di atas lincak. LOC top bamboo chair Lit. ‘Santayib’s wife approached her husband who was sitting on top of

the lincak (bamboo chair).’ ‘Santayib’s wife approached her husband who was sitting on the lincak

(bamboo chair).’ (Tohari 1982:32–33)

b. Istri Santayib mendekati suaminya yang sedang duduk di lincak.

Further exemplification of di atas ‘on top of’ in written texts is shown in (127a) and (128a). As with the previous two examples, the intended location is already known without the additional locational noun atas, since the nature of the Trajector and Landmark already I-implicates ‘flat upper surface’.

(127) a. Letakkan buket bunga di atas kertas krep put bouquet flower LOC top paper crepe Lit. ‘Put the bouquet of flowers on top of the crepe paper.’ ‘Put the bouquet of flowers on the crepe paper.’ (W/P-ANTA)

b. Letakkan buket bunga di kertas krep.

(128) a. Atur bola-bola adonan di atas loyang datar arrange ball-Pl dough LOC top tray shallow Lit. ‘Arrange the dough balls on top of the shallow tray.’ ‘Arrange the dough balls on the shallow tray.’ (W/P-LEMP)

b. Atur bola-bola adonan di loyang datar.

Although being explicit may serve a functional purpose, ‘over-explicitness’ can lead to confusion. An interesting example is shown in (129) below, from a text published by the Indonesian government’s department of conservation, about problems in the conservation of Indonesian coastal areas. Here, di dalam is used to suggest ‘on the water’.

(129) Rumpon yang selama ini di-pergunakan oleh masyarakat fish.catcher REL during this PASS-use by community

terbuat dari pelepah daun kelapa atau batang tanaman be made from spine leaf coconut or stalk plant

lain-nya yang di-sauhkan dan di-apungkan di dalam air. other-DEF REL PASS-anchor and PASS-float LOC inside water ‘The nets which are used by fishermen so far are made of the spine of coconut

leaves or the stalk of other plants which are cast afloat in the water.’ (W/E-PELE)

Usually when occurring with a liquid Landmark such as air ‘water’, di dalam indicates a location ‘under and inside’ the water (i.e. under the surface of the water, immersed in the water), highlighting the depth of the water. Thus boats cannot be di dalam air ‘in the water’ while submarines can. Fish can be either under or on the water surface, which is why one can say ikan di dalam air ‘fish in the water’ or ikan di permukaan air ‘fish on the water’. What makes di dalam in the above example confusing is that the passive verb ‘be floated’ diapungkan, which suggests a location on the water surface, is at odds with the compound form di dalam, which requires that the Trajector (in this case, fishing nets) be completely immersed. The expected default ‘under and inside’ reading is in this case denied by the presence of the verb. This ‘overspecification’ may have stemmed from the


conscious desire not to be misunderstood, given that the information is conveyed in writing. Alternatively, it may merely be a stylistic preference for compound forms, over-riding the need for semantic clarity. In either case, the result is a sentence that is rather confusing for the reader.

In other cases, an overspecification may be necessary to convey with precision where something is located in order to avoid misinterpretation, especially when the message is written. Consider the example below, from a novel about the relation between a Javanese man of a lower class family (son of a servant) who is unofficially adopted by a Javanese upper class family (the servant’s employer). The sentence describes the man’s sense of appreciation upon being given a room in the family home.

(130) Entah apa pertimbangan Ndoro Guru Kakung dan who.knows what consideration master teacher male and

Ndoro Guru Putri, saya mendapat kamar di dalam rumah, Mistress teacher female 1Sg get room LOC inside house

meskipun bagian yang paling belakang dari bagian dalam even.though part REL most back from part inside

rumah itu. house that ‘I don’t know what reasons Ndoro Guru Kakung and Ndoro Guru Putri

had that I got a room inside the house, even though it is on the furthest back of the inside of the house.’ (Kayam 1992:32)

If one observes the form di dalam in this example, one may simply understand it as referring to a room in a house, and not, for instance, a bungalow, which is usually a separate room behind the house. But there is more that is implied here. The writer is at pains in specifying that the room is indeed inside the house by mentioning further that it is in ‘the furthest back of the inside region of the house’. What is not said is in fact a bundle of information about the relationship between commoners and aristocrats in Javanese society. The fact that the man is given a room in the house is a sign that he is considered as part of the family and not, like servants in traditional Javanese society, someone who is relegated to the servant’s compound, which, in a traditional home of a Javanese aristocratic family, is usually a separate building at the back of the main compound. The sentence mentions however, that the room is at the furthest back of the inside region of the house, which suggests that even though he is considered part of the family, he is not afforded the same status as the other members.

Thus the spatial location of the room being ‘inside but at the furthest back of the inside’ is culturally significant, for it conveys the social status of the man being ‘part of but not the same as other members of the family’. All this information is not expressed in the sentence even though the description is very specific. Nor is it explained in the novel since the writer assumes that the reader has the necessary background knowledge to understand the relations. However, the ‘overspecification’ of the sentence cannot achieve what it intends to do if this presumed knowledge is not had. Thus a high degree of explicitness alone is not always sufficient for conveying one’s intention.

The high distribution of compound forms in written procedural discourse suggests that, besides medium, genre is also a motivating factor for selection. Since procedural discourse

88 Chapter 3

is about giving instructions, writers in particular have to ensure that the information is sufficiently detailed or specific to avoid misinterpretation, facilitate the comprehension, and ultimately, facilitate the undertaking of the intended procedure. As such, compounds are more likely to be preferred. Consider the example in (131a) from a television cooking show where di dalam ‘inside’ refers to the interior region of a three-dimensional Landmark. As can be seen in (131b), di can substitute for the compound form.

(131) a. Bola-bola ini tempatkan di dalam gelas ataupun wadah. ball-RDP this place LOC inside glass or bowl Lit. ‘Put these balls inside a glass or bowl.’ ‘Put these balls in a glass or bowl.’ (S/P-RAMA)

b. Bola-bola ini tempatkan di gelas ataupun wadah.

The already assumed location is sometimes also further reinforced by the presence of a verb implicating the location (cf. Sinha and Kuteva 1995). For example, the verb rendam ‘soak, immerse’, which suggests that the Trajector must be immersed in the liquid Landmark (whether the immersion is total or less than total is of little relevance), can co-occur with the compound di dalam which also implicates the same thing, as seen in (132). The locational noun dalam is not necessary in this case.

(132) labu kuning ini kita rendam dulu di dalam air kapur sirih. gourd yellow this 1Pl soak first LOC inside water lime sirih ‘we soak the pumpkin in sirih (for betel leaf) lime water first.’ (S/P-RAMA)

Similarly below, the passive verb dimasukkan ‘be put inside’, which already presupposes the location inside some sort of enclosure or container, is sufficient to indicate that the Trajector is in the interior region of the Landmark (in this case, the hollow part of a pumpkin), however, the compound form di dalam ‘inside’ is also used, making the instruction explicit.

(133) T: Sangkaya ini adalah seperti-nya ya srikaya sangkaya this be like-DEF yes srikaya I: Ya. Yes T: di-masukkan di dalam .. labu kuning. PASS-put.inside LOC inside gourd yellow T: ‘Sangkaya is actually like srikaya’ I: ‘Yes.’ T: ‘which is put inside a pumpkin.’ (S/P-RAMA)

Verbs such as masuk ‘go inside, enter’ and its derivatives (memasukkan, dimasukkan, or its colloquial version masukin, all meaning ‘put inside’) in fact are often used transitively, giving further evidence that compounds such as di dalam do not add extra information than what is already expressed by the verb. It can therefore be omitted. Consider the following from Cumming (2002).

(134) terus kita langsung masukin saku then 1Pl directly put.in pocket ‘then we immediately put (it: bankbook with money) into our pocket’

(Cumming 2002)


It is perfectly acceptable to add di or the directional preposition ke in front of the object saku ‘pocket’ to indicate the endpoint of the Trajector’s movement. However, the verb masukin itself already specifies movement into some sort of enclosure, thus either preposition would simply reiterate this notion.

In summary, the point to be noted from the preceding discussion is that, in general, compound prepositions with di do not always add more specification than what can already be implicated from the simple form alone. In some cases, they can do both, as we have seen in (130). I argued that the use of compounds for adding specificity should be distinguished from those that do not. Those that are selected primarily for making the default interpretation explicit can in general be substituted with di (in other words, the locational noun can be dropped), whereas those that refer to specific locations cannot usually be replaced by di without altering the interpretation. This distinction is useful for explaining why in some cases the locational noun in a compound can be omitted, and in other cases it cannot.

I pointed out also that in some contexts, the occurence of certain verbs that presuppose default locations allow the omission of the locational noun, or indeed, the whole preposition. To the question as to why speakers select compounds when the simple form can sufficiently convey the information, I argued that compounds may serve the need for explicitness which may be required by the topic of the discourse, the medium, or the genre through which the message is expressed, e.g. in the context of contrasting, confirming, or emphasizing locations, and giving instructions. Compounds may also reflect stylistic choices. That is, by alternating between a compound and the simple form, a speaker can avoid monotony. It should be noted that it is not always easy to predict exactly which of these functional purposes motivate the selection of form, for ultimately, it is a combination rather than a single purpose which determines whether a simple or compound form is chosen.

3.5 Genre, medium, and the distribution of di

In this section I examine the distribution pattern of di across genres and mediums to show, firstly, that the generality of di contributes to its high frequency of occurrence, and secondly, that uses which are disputed by previous studies (e.g. with temporal use, abstract use, and the use with human Landmarks) display different statuses in its overall use pattern, some being more peripheral than others. Furthermore, their distribution is also partially genre dependent.

Among the three locative prepositions under study, di (including its compound forms) is the most frequently occurring; it comprises 63.9% (905 tokens) of the total 1415 prepositions in the corpus, as shown in Figure 3.3.

Number of tokens Percentage Di 905 63.9% Pada 298 21.0% Dalam 212 14.9% Total tokens 1415 100%

Figure 3.3: The distribution of di, pada, and dalam in the corpus

90 Chapter 3

This frequency of di is compatible with the result of lexical count in Muhadjir et al. (1996), shown below.

Di 44637 tokens Pada 11211 tokens Dalam 18428 tokens

It is interesting to note here that in Muhadjir et al. dalam is shown to have a higher frequency than pada. The discrepancy between their count and that in Figure 3.3 is due, presumably, to the fact that the data in Muhadjir et al. is restricted to one particular genre and medium, namely written articles from a newspaper, hence it fails to account for the prevalence of pada in procedural discourse (see Chapter 4).

The high frequency of di may be attributed to two factors. First, its general semantic content makes it a convenient choice of preposition. Di can be selected in place of pada and dalam in a range of contexts where the reverse is not always possible; for example, only di can occur in compound forms; moreover, some of these forms cannot be substituted for by either pada or dalam, indicating that they are not semantically equivalent (di antara ‘between’ and di sepanjang ‘along’ are two examples).

In general (that is, disregarding genre specific distribution), di occurs more frequently in written discourse than in spoken, as can be seen in Figure 3.4.

Spoken (Total tokens: 377)

Written (Total tokens: 528)

Narrative 167 184 Expository 117 179 Procedural 93 165

Figure 3.4: The distribution of di (including compound forms)

Two factors may contribute to this higher frequency other than generality. One is that compound prepositions, which are included in the count, occur more frequently in written discourse, as seen earlier in Figure 3.2. The other is that the count includes the occurrences of di as a deictic, anaphoric, Wh- question, and relative marker, illustrated at the beginning of this chapter but not elaborated further. I include them precisely because these uses are unique to di, hence showing its wider applicability compared to pada and dalam.

The result of the frequency count in this study supports the assumption held by previous studies that di is primarily a spatial preposition. Figure 3.5 below shows that, with the exception of spoken expository discourse, spatial Landmarks constitutes the highest occurrence in all mediums and genres. We may also say this is the prototypical use of di. However, the finding here does not support previous claims that di does not occur with human, temporal, and abstract Landmarks.


NARRATIVE (Total tokens: 304)

EXPOSITORY (Total tokens: 252)

PROCEDURAL (Total tokens: 231)

Landmark type Spoken (total: 137)

Written (total: 69)

Spoken (total: 42)

Written (total: 169)

Spoken (total: 66)


Spatial (Non-human) 125 134 36 122 57 156 Spatial (Human) 8 5 3 – 2 1 Temporal 1 4 1 3 1 3 Abstract 3 25 43 44 6 5

Figure 3.5: The distribution of di across genres and mediums12

Figure 3.5 above shows that the abstract use is much higher in written narrative and both spoken and written expository discourse. An explanation for this can be given by considering the general characteristics of the mediums and genres. With regard to narratives, one may speculate that, because the spoken data essentially comprises casual conversation, it is likely that di is selected to denote spatial locations, abstract locations being expressed by other means (e.g. by using non-prepositional constructions). The data for written narrative, on the other hand, includes fictional as well as non-fictional stories. In the written medium, ideas, thoughts, or feelings are more likely to be described more explicitly by using prepositional phrases. In expository discourse, the frequency of abstract use is comparable across the mediums since this discourse is generally about abstract concepts. Having stated that, it remains that even in this type of discourse, di is predominantly used in writing to denote spatial locations, as shown by the difference in the frequency between spoken and written spatial use (36 versus 122 tokens respectively).

3.6 Conclusion

I have described di as a preposition with general semantic content, though with four established uses, namely, to suggest the notions of spatial coincidence, humans as location, time as location, and abstract concepts as location. Di is thus four-way polysemous. In spatial use, di suggests that the Trajector occupies the same portion of physical space as its Landmark. In occurrences with human Landmarks, the relation suggests an association between the Trajector, which may be human or non-human, and the human Landmark. In temporal use, the notion of shared physical space is extended to ‘sameness of time’, that is, an event happens at (or a state pertains during) the same time as the time mentioned. In abstract use, the same notion is understood as ‘association’ between an abstract concept and a physical or abstract reference point.

Contrary to previous works, which generally treat temporal and abstract uses, and the use with human Landmarks, as either non-existent or not recommended, this chapter has shown that these uses of di do occur, although they may not all be conventionalized to the same degree. A criticism that might be leveled against the present description is that the 12 Note that the total tokens in each box does not coincide with the total in Figure 3.4 since the details of

the occurrence in other uses (as anaphoric, deictic, Wh- question, and relative marker) are not shown here.

92 Chapter 3

four meanings I posited are too broad and therefore, like the definitions given in previous studies, are not sufficient for distinguishing di from pada and dalam. I argued however, that the broadness of the description is necessary to reflect the generality of di. The present analysis diverges from previous accounts in that it provides a detailed description of specific interpretations generated by di through its occurrences in various contexts. An examination of such contexts is necessary to show the range of possible configurations that can be expressed by this preposition.

This chapter has also presented a different account of compound prepositions by distinguishing between compounds that add specificity and those that simply render explicit what can be pragmatically inferred. Compound prepositions have so far been assumed to serve only the former function. The fact that the locational noun in some compounds can be dropped has not been examined in detail. By making a distinction between the two types of compounds, the present analysis is able to explain the optionality and also identify discourse and pragmatic factors that contibute to the use of compounds.

The final part of the description, examining the distribution pattern of di, presents the following findings. Firstly, it shows that, among the three prepositions under study, di is the most frequently selected. This is because it is sufficiently general and therefore can accommodate a wide range of contexts. Secondly, it shows that di is predominantly used for spatial relations, which lends support to the previous assumption that di denotes place. However, the present findings run counter to the assumption that di cannot occur with human, temporal, and abstract Landmarks.

93

4 Borrowing and ‘split’ semantic range in pada

4.1 Introduction

Of the three prepositions under study, pada is the only one that is of non-Malay origin. It also has the most elusive semantic range, in the sense that it is difficult to give a unified semantic account that includes all senses in its range.

As noted by several scholars (Gonda 1952:396, de Casparis 1997:27, Jones 1984:10), pada is historically derived from Sanskrit and entered the Indonesian vocabulary probably via Old Javanese and Classical Malay. Due to this indirect borrowing process, which took place over several centuries and involved several languages, the Sanskrit origin is no longer recognized by Indonesian speakers. Yet, many of the otherwise puzzling links between meanings in its semantic range become explicable only when one takes its original Sanskrit meanings into account.

In studies of Indonesian prepositions, there seems to be much confusion regarding the extent of the similarities or differences between pada and di on the one hand, and pada and kepada ‘to, toward’ on the other, and this confusion is reflected in existing definitions of these prepositions. With regard to the former, pada is almost always defined relative to di, either as being identical to it (e.g. both denoting a location), or in contrast with it (e.g. pada but not di can occur with human Landmarks). As regards the latter, pada is described as a short form of kepada, meaning ‘to, toward a person’, but it is not made clear to what extent this is true and how this directional use relates to the locational use.

To a degree, the unclarity of the previous definitions reflect the split nature of pada; that is, the existence of two basic meanings in its semantic range, one being locational and the other directional, that enables pada to be substituted for by di and kepada, respectively. However, to consider the distinction between these meanings of pada only in terms of interchangeability with di and kepada, although useful, is not sufficiently explanatory for the following reasons. First, substitution with other prepositions is not always a reliable test for sense distinction. Secondly, the interchangeability is not confined to these two prepositions but also involves the preposition ke ‘to, toward’, thus the situation is more complex than currently presented in previous studies.

My first aim in this chapter, then, is to describe the synchronic meanings of pada that take into account its semantic relation with di, kepada, and also ke, which are determined not solely by interchangeability but also by other criteria for sense distinction set out in Chapter 2. In relation to di, I will demonstrate that indeed pada is similar to di and can be

94 Chapter 4

substituted by it in many cases. However, the two prepositions are distinct in the following respects. First, pada has a directional meaning as part of its semantic range, while di does not. This is particularly evident when one examines its occurrences in dynamic contexts with human and abstract Landmarks. Secondly, pada, unlike di, tends to occur in phrasal verbs, and therefore its meanings are often dependent on the whole construction rather than on the prepositional phrase alone. Thirdly, pada tends to be used for abstract concepts and is associated with the formal register, while di is predominantly used in a spatial sense and often makes an utterance sound colloquial.

In relation to kepada ‘to, toward’, it is argued that the claim by previous studies, namely, that pada is a short form of kepada, holds only for directional uses, where pada is distinct from di. Furthermore, pada in this meaning occurs not only with humans but also with abstract Landmarks. The interchangeability between pada and ke occurs only in directional cases, and in occurrences with human Landmarks, ke tends to render an utterance colloquial.

I argue that synchronically, the locational and directional meanings of pada constitute two distinct clusters that derive historically from two different sources in Sanskrit; therefore, although at the synchronic level these two clusters seem irreconcilable, they are linked at the historical level. My second aim, then, is to give a diachronic account that examines the original meanings in Sanskrit and traces their path of development through Classical Malay into Indonesian.

The chapter is organized as follows. In §4.2 I describe the locational and directional clusters of the synchronic meanings of pada, highlighting the relations with di and kepada (and to a lesser extent, with ke ‘to, toward’, sama ‘with, toward’, and akan ‘of, about, toward’). Sections 4.3 and 4.4 continue the semantic description by examining uses that can be considered as extensions of the locational and directional meanings. In §4.5 I discuss the development of pada, relating its present uses in Indonesian to its earlier meanings in Sanskrit and Classical Malay.

The remainder of the chapter is devoted to issues relating to discourse and distribution. In §4.6 I discuss pada in relation to the notion of ‘affect’. This section also shows the significance of pragmatic enrichment in the development of a new meaning. Section 4.7 takes up the issue of optionality of preposition, which has been briefly mentioned in previous studies. It is argued that the choice between the use and non-use of pada is complex but may partially have to do with the formality of the situation. Section 4.8 presents the distribution pattern of pada across mediums and genres. The chapter concludes by highlighting the importance of the historical, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic factors in the description of prepositional meanings.

4.2 Synchronic description of pada

At the synchronic level, the meanings of pada can be grouped into two clusters: locational meanings and directional meanings. In the following, I discuss each of these clusters in turn.

4.2.1 Locational meanings

In the locational cluster, three meanings are identified. The first is the positional meaning ‘X is at place/position Y’. The second typically occurs with human Landmarks

Borrowing and ‘split’ semantic range in pada 95

and suggests ‘X is associated with person Y’. The third is the part-whole meaning ‘X is part of Y’.

Before I explicate these meanings, it is worth examining how previous studies account for the locational uses overall. Generally, there are two different views; one view treats pada as being synonymous with di, while the other two treat it as being similar but also distinct from di. These are discussed in turn below.

The view of pada as being synonymous to di is represented by the following definition from the standard monolingual Indonesian dictionary Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia:

Kata perangkai yang dipakai untuk menunjukkan posisi di atas atau di dalam hubungan dengan, searti dengan di (dipakai di depan kata nomina, kata ganti orang, keterangan waktu). ‘A joining word used to indicate a position on or in relation with, has the same meaning as di (used in front of a noun, pronoun, (and) temporal adverbial).’


This definition basically implies that, because pada is synonymous with di, it is of no importance which of these prepositions is chosen because either one is equally suitable for any context. Any competent adult speaker will know intuitively that this assumption is simply incorrect.1 Even through simple examples one can show that the two prepositions are not totally synonymous. One can say, for instance, Mary cinta pada ibunya (literally, ‘Mary loves at her mother’) ‘Mary loves her mother’, but not *Mary cinta di ibunya; also, we can refer to a book on the table using di, as in Buku itu di meja ‘The book is on the table’, but not *Buku itu pada meja. The above definition therefore, is as much inaccurate as it is unhelpful in assisting second language learners.

The other view of pada, treating this preposition as being similar to but distinct from di, suggests that both pada and di denote a place or location but they can be distinguished in terms of the contrast between (a) ‘actual/non-actual’ place (Ramlan 1980, Chaer 1990), and (b) one- and two-dimensional Landmarks (Lapoliwa 1992). While these distinctions may suggest something about the Landmarks of pada, the data in this study suggest that neither can be used to distinguish between pada and di. To see to what extent these distinctions reflect the Landmarks of pada, we will now examine these claims in turn.

With respect to the first distinction, Ramlan (1980:91) states that pada ‘tidak secara khusus menyatakan tempat’ (‘does not specifically refer to a place’), while di ‘mungkin secara khusus menyatakan tempat, tetapi mungkin juga tidak secara khusus menyatakan tempat’ (‘it may or may not specifically refer to a place’). Chaer (1990:29), reiterating Ramlan’s definition, states that di denotes ‘tempat yang sebenarnya’ (‘an actual place’) while pada denotes ‘tempat yang tidak sebenarnya’ (‘not an actual place’) (also see Vimala 1984:62 for a similar definition). This claim is supported by examples such as (1) and (2). In (1a) and (2a) we see that ‘actual’ places such as Kebumen and Jakarta, respectively, are preceded by di, and ‘non-actual’ places such as Dinas Perkreditan Desa and Dinas Penerangan Kota are preceded by pada. (1b) and (2b) show that pada, unlike

1 It is shown later in the chapter that pada is selected mostly for formal contexts and written discourse. As

such, it is unlikely that it would be used by very young children (i.e. pre-school; those who have not been introduced to writing and reading). An interesting question would be at what stage children acquire this preposition. So far, there is no research that I am aware of which examines this question. Dardjowidjojo’s (2000) work on one child’s acquisition of Indonesian devotes very little attention to prepositions; it mentions briefly that by the age of 4, the child is familiar with the use of di (and some other prepositions which do not concern us here) (see p. 131).

96 Chapter 4

di, cannot refer to ‘actual’ places, while (1c) and (2c) show that di can refer to either ‘actual’ or ‘non-actual’ places.

(1) a. Saya sudah bekerja pada Dinas Perkreditan Desa di Kebumen. 1Sg PERF work LOC office credit village LOC Kebumen ‘I have worked at the village crediting office in Kebumen.’ (Ramlan 1980:92) b. *Saya sudah bekerja pada Dinas Perkreditan Desa pada Kebumen.

(Ramlan 1980:92) c. Saya sudah bekerja di Dinas Perkreditan Desa di Kebumen. (Ramlan 1980:92)

(2) a. Suami-nya bekerja pada Dinas Penerangan Kota di Jakarta. husband-3Sg.POSS work LOC office information city LOC Jakarta ‘Her husband works at the City Information Office in Jakarta.’ (Chaer 1990:29) b. *Suaminya bekerja pada Dinas Penerangan Kota pada Jakarta. (Chaer 1990:29) c. Suaminya bekerja di Dinas Penerangan Kota di Jakarta. (Chaer 1990:29)

One obvious problem with Ramlan’s or Chaer’s definition is that the term tempat ‘place’ itself is not defined or adequately illustrated, and as such, it fails to exclude the opposite category of ‘non-actual’ place. For instance, Dinas Perkreditan Desa ‘Village Crediting Office’ and Dinas Penerangan Kota ‘City Information Office’ are in fact ambiguous between ‘actual’ places (the buildings where the people work) and ‘non-actual’ places (institutions, the employers). The latter reading represents an extended sense of place, i.e. a place metonymically stands for an institution. The acceptability of pada in (1a) and (2a) can also be attributed to the conventionalization of pada with people or institution as the Landmark in the phrasal verb bekerja pada ‘work at/for (an employer/institution)’, thus when the Landmark is a spatial location, pada is not acceptable, e.g. *bekerja pada Jakarta ‘work for Jakarta’ (Jakarta being a metonym for the local government of Jakarta).

Examples such as (3a) and (4a) below further invalidate Ramlan’s or Chaer’s claim. Here bank ‘bank’ and ruangan ‘room’ are both ‘actual’ (i.e. concrete) places, and pada is acceptable in both cases. Moreover, like in (1c) and (2a), it can be substituted for by di, as shown in (3b) and (4b).

(3) a. Herlina menempelkan plakat protes itu pada sebuah bank Herlina stick placard protest that LOC one-CLASS bank terkenal. well.known ‘Herlina stuck the protest poster on (e.g. the window/wall of) a well-known

bank.’ b. Herlina menempelkan plakat protes itu di sebuah bank terkenal.

(4) a. Kotak jamur di-letakkan pada ruangan yang tidak kena box mushroom PASS-put LOC room REL NEG in.contact

cahaya matahari langsung. light sun direct ‘The mushroom box is put in a room that is not subject to direct sunlight.’

(W/P-JAMU) b. Kotak jamur diletakkan di ruangan yang tidak kena cahaya matahari langsung.


The question, then, is what differentiates (1a–2a) from (3a–4a), such that pada is not acceptable in the former two examples, but is acceptable in the latter two, even though all of the Landmarks refer to ‘actual’ places. The answer seems to lie crucially on how the notion ‘actual place’ is understood. Pada cannot refer to definite geographical locations (e.g. as referred to by proper names such as Kebumen and Jakarta). However, when the place is indefinite, as in (3a) and (4a), it is acceptable. Indefiniteness may be shown by an indefinite marker, such as sebuah ‘a, one’ in (3a), or relativization, as in (4a). Thus we cannot say *penduduk pada Australia ‘population/inhabitants in Australia’, but penduduk pada sebuah negara ‘population/inhabitants in a country’ is acceptable. Similarly, *mereka tinggal pada pulau itu ‘they live on that island’ is unacceptable, while mereka tinggal pada sebuah pulau ‘they live on an island’ is acceptable. Likewise, the following examples from the previous chapter, which all have di in the original, are unacceptable if we substitute it with pada: Nah, saya ada di/*pada kafenya sana ‘So, I was in that cafe’; Ia bertemu dengan Bu Endah di/*pada pasar ‘She met Mrs Endah at the market’; ketika saya tinggal di/*pada negeri kaktus Meksiko ‘when I was living in the cactus country, Mexico’; reporter sebuah majalah wanita di/*pada ibukota ‘a reporter of a women’s magazine in the capital city’.

In (5a) we have a further example repeated from the previous chapter. Here, the Landmark di sungai ‘at the river’ refers to the river as a geographical landmark (‘a meeting point’) rather than to the body of water that rivers are generally associated with. Substituting di with pada, as in (5b), renders the utterance unacceptable.

(5) a. Waktu itu saya di ... peseni sama ... apa ya kayak time that 1Sg PASS-tell by what yes like penanggungjawab-nya di situ. <Q Nanti kalau bisa jam person.in.charge-DEF LOC there later if can hour empat sudah di sungai Q> gitu lho. four PERF LOC river like.that EMP ‘That time I was told by ... what do you call it, the person in charge there

“if you can, be back at the river by four o’clock”, like that.’ (S/N-ENDA) b. *Waktu itu saya di ... peseni sama ... apa ya kayak penanggungjawabnya di situ.

<Q Nanti kalau bisa jam empat sudah pada sungai Q> gitu lho.

The second distinction between pada and di, as claimed by Lapoliwa (1992:42), is in the dimensionality of the Landmarks. Pada is argued to occur only with two-dimensional Landmarks, while di occurs with one-dimensional ones. This assumption may have stemmed from the observation that pada often occurs with Landmarks construed as surfaces, as in (6a), (7a), and (8a). However, as seen in (6b), (7b), and (8b), di is also acceptable, which shows that two-dimensional Landmarks are not exclusive to pada.

(6) a. Saya lupa menuliskan nama pada kertas ulangan saya. 1Sg forget write name LOC paper test 1Sg.POSS ‘I forgot to write (my) name on my test paper.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:43) b. Saya lupa menuliskan nama di kertas ulangan saya.

(7) a. Apa yang tertera pada amplop itu? what REL be.written LOC envelope that

‘What is written on that envelope?’ (Lapoliwa 1992:43)

98 Chapter 4

b. Apa yang tertera di amplop itu? (8) a. Pada leher-nya ku-buat irisan melingkar. LOC neck-3Sg.POSS 1Sg-make slash curl ‘On her neck I made a slash right around.’ (Tohari 1982:154) b. Di lehernya kubuat irisan melingkar.

A total reliance on dimensionality in explaining prepositional meanings presents an immediate problem, as not all lexical items express an inherent dimensionality. As pointed out by Fillmore (1975:17), some nouns in English such as ‘lawn’ and ‘yard’ indeed seem to have the dimensionality property built in, since they only have one choice of preposition. Thus we speak of children playing ‘on the lawn’ or ‘in the yard’, but not ‘*in the lawn’ or ‘*on the yard’. Dimensionality is also more rigidly interpreted in a language like Tzeltal, where, to be able to describe the location of an object, the language demands that we know the shape of the Landmark relative to which the object is positioned (Levinson 1994). For instance, if we want to say that a snake is on a stone, we must know the geometric properties of the stone to be able to select the appropriate expression (1994:837). But this does not mean that all stones are of the same shape and therefore the same expression gets selected in every case involving the locative relation between a snake and a stone. Dimensionality, then, is best understood as a relational construct, at least for the purpose of describing prepositional meanings.

Dimensionality is also, for the most part, a matter of conceptualization, rather than the inherent property of an object. It is therefore mostly subjectively defined (cf. Vandeloise 1991:4–9). A plank of wood, for instance, can be construed as either two-dimensional (a line) or three-dimensional (having length, width, and thickness). Similarly, a door can be construed two-dimensionally (as a surface), or three-dimensionally (e.g. when we choose a door to be installed in the bedroom, for example). Another good example is leher ‘neck’ in (8a) above, which is construed as a surface (making a slash on the surface of the neck), but if someone says kalungkan pada leher (literally, ‘necklace (it) around the neck’) ‘put it around the neck’, clearly the neck is thought of three-dimensionally, yet in both cases pada is acceptable.

The foregoing discussion shows that pada can occur with spatial locations that may or may not be construed as two-dimensional. Pada cannot occur with a geographical location that is definite, since such locations are usually referred to by di. In this respect, then, pada suggests a more abstract sense of place than di does.

4.2.1.1 Positional meaning

The first and basic locational meaning of pada is to suggest simply that the Trajector is placed or positioned relative to a spatial Landmark, which can be formulated as ‘Pada1: X is at place/position Y’, as exemplified in (9a)–(10a). The acceptability of di as a substitute is shown in (9b)–(10b).

(9) a. Katak daun menyimpan telur-nya pada gumpalan busa yang melekat frog leaf store egg-3Sg/Pl LOC wad foam REL stick

pada ranting semak-semak. LOC branch underbrush-RDP ‘The leaf frog stores its eggs on/in the wad of foam that sticks to the branches of the underbrush.’ (Tohari 1982:26)


b. Katak daun menyimpan telurnya di gumpalan busa yang melekat di ranting semak-semak.

(10) a. Terang, sebab pada sumbu lampu minyak itu di-pasang bright because LOC wick lamp oil that PASS-attach

se-buah cincin penerang. one-CLASS ring illuminator ‘(It is) bright, because on/around the wick of the oil lamp an illuminator

ring is attached.’ (Tohari 1982:20)

b. Terang, sebab di sumbu lampu minyak itu dipasang sebuah cincin penerang.

In this positional use, topological relations such as ‘contact’ or ‘surface’ can be inferred from the context, thus they do not constitute distinct meanings. For example in (9a), both instances of pada suggest contact in the sense that the Trajector is touching the Landmark (Goddard 2000:91), but the first occurrence is ambiguous between ‘touching the surface of the Landmark’ and ‘inside the Landmark’ (the eggs can be on the surface of the foam or inside it), much in the same way that some static relations with di are ambiguous. In (10a) the Trajector ‘illuminator ring’ is close to but may or may not touch the Landmark ‘wick of the oil lamp’ (that is, it is not a condition that the ring touches the wick for an oil lamp to function). In this case, pada simply identifies the position of the ring as being relative to the wick.

In (11) pada is followed by a definite Landmark, indicated by the enclitic -nya; however, in this case, the phrase pada tempatnya has an abstract conventionalized meaning ‘in the appropriate place/position’. In this respect, substituting pada with di, as in (11b), is awkward (it sounds as though the panels have to be stored in a particular place).

(11) a. Pastikan juga bahwa semua panel instrumen berada pada tempat-nya. ensure also that all panel instrument be LOC place-DEF ‘Ensure also that all instrument panels are in place.’ (W/P-PASA)

b. ??Pastikan juga bahwa semua panel instrumen berada di tempatnya.

The negative version of the expression pada tempatnya, namely tidak pada tempatnya (literally, ‘not in its place’), is also used in a metaphorical sense to suggest an inappropriate action or behaviour. Di on the other hand, retains its locative meaning even when used with tempat in the fixed expression di tempat ‘at the location, be present’, e.g. Gubernur sudah berada di tempat ‘The governor has already arrived (at the place)’, Beliau tidak di tempat ‘He is not there (at the place)’.

As with di, the position of the Trajector in pada is often specified by the verb, and therefore the interpretation of the prepositional relation is ‘distributed’ across the entire construction (Sinha and Kuteva 1995; cf. Talmy 1985). Thus in (12a), the Trajector’s position can be described as ‘on the fence, sticking’, and in (13a), the Trajector is ‘on the hands, resting on them’. The acceptability of di is shown in (12b)–(13b).

(12) a. Kontrol bekicot-bekicot yang menempel pada pagar. control snail-RDP REL stick LOC fence ‘Control the snails that are sticking on/to the fence.’ (W/P-BEKI)

b. Kontrol bekicot-bekicot yang menempel di pagar.

100 Chapter 4

(13) a. Ambil posisi berlutut, bertumpu pada kedua tangan yang take position kneel rest.on LOC both hands REL

terletak di bawah bahu. be.positioned LOC below shoulder ‘Get to a kneeling position, resting on both hands that are positioned

below the shoulders.’ (W/P-YOGA)

b. Ambil posisi berlutut, bertumpu di kedua tangan yang terletak di bawah bahu.

As pada tends to occur in phrasal verbs, in some cases the absence of the verb renders the sentence unacceptable, as in (14a), while di remains acceptable, as in (14b).

(14) a. *Ada bekicot pada pagar exist snail LOC fence ‘There are snails on the fence.’

b. Ada bekicot di pagar.

Thus (13) does not make sense at all if the verb bertumpu ‘lean on’ is omitted. The sentence *Ambil posisi berlutut pada kedua tangan yang terletak di bawah bahu ‘Get into a kneeling position on two hands that are below the shoulders’, if it were to be interpretable at all, would suggest that the person is to kneel on somebody else’s hands, which is not what is intended.

Another example of the obligatory presence of the verb is the phrase bersandar pada ‘lean on’, e.g. Dia bersandar pada tiang listrik ‘S/he leans on the electricity pole’. The sentence *Dia pada tiang listrik is not acceptable to suggest that the person is leaning on the pole or standing next to it. Other examples that are found in dynamic contexts with pada, are discussed in the next section.

The acceptability of di in the examples shown so far brings back the question as to what extent pada is semantically similar to di in the locational use. The following distinctions are suggested: (a) in some cases, pada gives an abstract reading, while di retains its locative reading; (b) pada tends to occur in phrasal verbs, therefore in such cases, it cannot occur without the verb, whereas di can.

The positional meaning of pada can also be observed in dynamic contexts, as in (15a)–(17a). All of these examples show a change of location, that is, the Trajector is displaced from its original position to the Landmark. As with dynamic occurrences of di, movement is largely encoded by the verb. The acceptability of di in these contexts is shown in (15b)–(17b).

(15) a. Terakhir, pasang saringan udara pengganti pada mulut karburator finally attach filter air replacement LOC mouth carburetor ‘Finally, attach the new air filter to the top part of the carburetor.’2

b. Terakhir, pasang saringan udara pengganti di mulut karburator.

(16) a. Pada bagian atas kotoran hewan tadi kita tabur LOC part top waste animal aforementioned 1Pl sprinkle

2 This example is from the previous chapter and has di in the original, as in (20b). In (20a) I have replaced

di with pada.


sedikit abu dan kapur. small.amount ash and lime ‘On top of the animal waste we sprinkle a small amount of ash and lime.’

(W/P-KOMP)

b. Di bagian atas kotoran hewan tadi kita tabur sedikit abu dan kapur.

(17) a. untuk memperhalus permukaan dari bola-bola ini, berikan for smoothen surface from ball-RDP this give

sedikit minyak pada telapak tangan. a.little oil LOC palm hand ‘to smooth the (meat)balls, put a little oil on the palm of (your) hand.’

(W/E-AROM)

b. untuk memperhalus permukaan dari bola-bola ini, berikan sedikit minyak di telapak tangan.

4.2.1.2 Part-whole meaning

The part-whole meaning of pada, which can be formulated as ‘Pada2: X is part of Y’, is similar to Pada1 in that the Landmark is typically non-human. However, in the part-whole meaning pada suggests an additional element of meaning, namely that the Trajector is identified as being a functional part of the Landmark.

Following Cruse (1986:158–159) a ‘part’ is defined as follows. First, a typical part has ‘autonomy, non-arbitrary boundaries and determinate function with respect to the whole’ (e.g. parts of a typewriter need not belong to the same or actual typewriter). Second, the boundaries are motivated, that is, they are delimited by a discontinuity of some sort (e.g. a thigh is delimited by the hip and knee). Third, a part has a definite function relative to the whole (e.g. eye for seeing). Where there is no obvious discontinuity, function also delimits the part.

Part-whole relations with pada can also be expressed by noun phrases (genitive or attributive), whereas the positional relations in Pada1 cannot, e.g. gambar pada cangkir ‘picture on the cup’ cannot be expressed as *gambar cangkir because a picture is not a functional part of a cup. In this respect, pada is similar to some uses of English ‘on’ mentioned by Goddard (2002), e.g. handle on the door → door handle, branch on the tree → tree branch.

Examples of the part-whole use are given in (18a)–(20a), with their noun phrase equivalents in (18c)–(20c). Di is an acceptable substitute but not in all cases. For example, it is odd in (19b), however, the oddness here might be because di makes the utterance sound very colloquial and therefore may be rejected by some speakers.

(18) a. Asap putih menandakan gasket pada piston sudah jelek. smoke white indicate piston.ring LOC piston PERF bad ‘White smoke indicates that the ring on the piston is worn.’ (W/P-TIPS)

b. Asap putih menandakan gasket di piston sudah jelek.

c. gasket piston ‘piston ring’

102 Chapter 4

(19) a. Kuning telur pada telur segar berbentuk bulat (tidak pecah). yellow egg LOC egg fresh have.shape round NEG break ‘The yolk in fresh eggs are round (not broken).’ (Femina 39/XXI/1993,

Suplemen, p.7)

b. ??Kuning telur di telur segar berbentuk bulat (tidak pecah).

c. Kuning telur telur segar ‘the yolk of fresh eggs’

(20) a. Beberapa dahan pada pohon itu patah. a.few branch LOC tree that break ‘A few branches in that tree are broken.’

b. Beberapa dahan di pohon itu patah.

c. dahan pohon ‘tree branch’

In some cases, substituting pada with di results in awkwardness. This is particularly evident with inalienable possession. For example, we can say asap pada knalpot ‘smoke on the muffler’ (W/P-TIPS), or asap di knalpot, but not *tulang di manusia ‘bone on humans’ or *sayap di burung ‘feather on the bird’ (the latter sounds as if the feather belongs to a different bird). In other cases, di implicates that the part is positioned relative to the whole, rather than belonging to it, similar to the positional meaning of Pada1, e.g. tutup pada panci ‘lid on the pot’ (+> pot’s lid), whereas tutup di panci ‘lid on the pot’ (+> the lid that is sitting on the pot).

Some instances of the part-whole meaning might appear to suggest the positional meaning of Pada1 rather than Pada2. Consider (21a) below. This example describes a particular style of tumpeng ‘cone-shaped ceremonial rice’, which, unlike other styles, has a filling consisting of chicken, egg, potato, and so on. The common style of tumpeng presentation is to have the food assortment placed around the base of the cone, not inside it. Pada is used here not in the sense of ‘the filling is inside the cone’ but rather for identifying the particular part of the cone that is occupied by the filling, and can be paraphrased as ‘as for the inside part, there is an assortment of filling’. It thus implicates ‘not the exterior part of the cone’.

Di is also acceptable in this example, as in (21b). The equivalent genitive noun phrase of the pada phrase is given in (21c).

(21) a. Pada bagian dalam tumpeng yang berwarna kuning terdapat LOC part inside tumpeng REL have.colour yellow be.found

isi berupa ayam, kentang dan telur, lauk.pauk filling in.form.of chicken potato and egg food.assortment

yang penuh dengan makna. REL full with meaning ‘On the inside part of the yellow tumpeng (cone-shaped ceremonial rice)

is a filling consisting of chicken, potato and egg—assortments of (non-rice) dishes loaded with meaning.’ +> the part which is imperceptible to an observer (W/D-NASI)

b. Di bagian dalam tumpeng yang berwarna kuning terdapat isi berupa ayam, kentang dan telur, lauk pauk yang penuh dengan makna.

c. isi bagian dalam tumpeng ‘filling of the inside part of the tumpeng’


4.2.1.3 Locational use with human Landmarks

The locational use of pada with human Landmarks is related to Pada1 in the sense that humans are associated with the place/position they occupy (cf. Lyons 1977:693). The locational meaning in Pada1 (‘X is at place/position Y’) is thus extended to ‘Pada3: X is associated with person Y’. This use can be considered spatial only in so far as the Trajector and Landmark are not abstract entities.

Much has been made by previous studies about human Landmarks being characteristic of uses of pada, and not of di (Slametmuljana 1957:169, Li 1976:18, Ramlan 1980:93, Vimala 1984:60, Datang 1989:76, Chaer 1990:28, Lapoliwa 1992:39). As shown in the previous chapter, this claim does not hold, for not only can di occur with human Landmarks, but also, that the occurrences have different interpretations, depending on the context (e.g. whether the Trajector is also human).

In the ensuing discussion I will show that in the locational use with human Landmarks, pada is similar to di and can be substituted by it, the difference being in the implicature generated or the degree of formality evoked. It is only in directional use with these Landmarks, where pada suggests ‘to, toward a person’, that it is completely distinct from di (and consequently is not interchangeable with it).

The locational use is exemplified in (22a)-(24a). Pada in (22a) suggests a relation similar to the interpretation of di in (22b). The difference is in the implicature generated. That is, whereas the Landmark in di in (22b) is associated with their dwelling, suggesting the notion ‘at the human Landmark’s place’, pada in (22a) highlights the notion of ‘accompaniment’, suggesting that the human Landmark is the person that the human Trajector is living with. In (23a) and (24a), the relations suggest that the human Landmark is the person who is in control of the Trajector, the difference being that pada renders the utterance more formal than di.

(22) a. Dia tinggal pada anak-nya. 3Sg live LOC child-3Sg.POSS ‘S/he lives with her/his daughter/son.’ +> not with anyone else

(Lapoliwa 1992:39)

b. Dia tinggal di anaknya. +> at the daughter/son’s place

(23) a. Kunci lemari ini ada pada ayah. key cabinet this exist LOC father ‘The key to this cabinet is with father.’ (Chaer 1990:28-9)

b. Kunci lemari ini ada di ayah.

(24) a. Hanya ada sepucuk senjata pada kita. Pada mereka ada only be CLASS gun LOC 1Pl LOC 3Pl exist

lima bedil. five guns Lit. ‘There is only one firearm on us. On them there are five rifles.’ ‘There is only one firearm on us. They have five rifles on them.’

(Tohari 1982:162)

b. Hanya ada sepucuk senjata di kita. Di mereka ada lima bedil.

104 Chapter 4

That locational use with human Landmarks constitutes a distinct meaning can be shown by the unacceptability of conjoining a spatial Landmark and a human Landmark within the same utterance. For example, the utterance *Kunci-kunci itu ada pada pintu dan pada ayah ‘The keys are on the door and with father’ is odd and does not allow a crossed-interpretation (where each Landmark indicates a different meaning). The second Landmark makes it sound as though the key is somehow stuck on father rather than being kept by him.

4.2.2 Directional meanings

In the directional cluster, pada suggests two distinct meanings: ‘Pada4: X is oriented toward Y’ and ‘Pada5: Person X’s action or mental processes are directed at person Y’. Both meanings encode orientation or directionality. However, the first meaning represents spatial occurrences with non-human Landmarks, and di is also acceptable as an alternative, while the second is necessarily associated with human Landmarks, and di is not acceptable at all.

The directional meanings of pada have been described by previous studies in various terms such as arah yang dituju ‘the aimed direction’ (Ramlan 1980:94), tertuju terhadap sesuatu ‘directed at something’ (Chaer 1990:29), makna gerak ‘movement sense’ (Vimala 1984:60), and makna yang menyatakan tempat yang menjadi tujuan peristiwa atau perbuatan yang dinyatakan oleh verba ‘meaning that suggests that a place is the Goal of an event or action expressed by the verb’ (Lapoliwa 1992:40). While these terms may sufficiently reflect the synchronic use, the directional uses of pada and the reason why pada is distinct from di cannot be properly understood without reference to its historical development from Sanskrit. I discuss this development later in the chapter (see §4.5).

4.2.2.1 Directional use with non-human Landmarks

The use with non-human Landmarks, formulated as ‘Pada4: X is oriented toward Y’, suggests that the Trajector is physically oriented toward the Landmark, as exemplified in (25a)–(27a).

(25) a. Tempelkan kain keras pada tutup saku lalu jahit. attach cloth hard LOC cover pocket then sew ‘Adhere the stiff material onto the pocket cover then sew.’

+> covering the whole surface of the pocket (W/P-BLUS)

b. Tempelkan kain keras di tutup saku lalu jahit.

c. *Tempelkan kain keras kepada tutup saku lalu jahit.

d. Tempelkan kain keras ke tutup saku lalu jahit.

(26) a. Bila terlalu panas, semprotkan air pada bagian luar selubung when too hot spray water LOC part outside cover

plastik. plastic ‘When (it gets) too hot, spray water onto the outside part of the plastic cover.’

(W/P-JAMU)


b. Bila terlalu panas, semprotkan air di bagian luar selubung plastik.

c. *Bila terlalu panas, semprotkan air kepada bagian luar selubung plastik.

d. Bila terlalu panas, semprotkan air ke bagian luar selubung plastik.

(27) a. Dengan rasa agak takut saya mendekatkan tubuh saya with feeling rather scared 1Sg cause.to.be.close body 1Sg.POSS

pada Embok. LOC mother ‘Feeling a little scared, I moved my body close to mother’s.’ (4 sentences intervene) Saya mengangguk sambil memepetkan tubuh saya 1Sg nod while cause.to.be.close body 1Sg.POSS

ke tubuh Embok. DIR body mother ‘I nodded while moving my body closer to mother’s body.’ (W/N-PRIY)

b. Dengan rasa takut saya mendekatkan tubuh saya di Embok. (4 sentences intervene.) Saya mengangguk sambil memepetkan tubuh saya di tubuh Embok.

c. *Dengan rasa takut saya mendekatkan tubuh saya kepada Embok. (4 sentences intervene.) *Saya mengangguk sambil memepetkan tubuh saya kepada tubuh Embok.

d. Dengan rasa takut saya mendekatkan tubuh saya ke Embok. (4 sentences intervene.) Saya mengangguk sambil memepetkan tubuh saya ke tubuh Embok.

According to previous studies, pada can be substituted for by di in the locational use and by kepada in the directional use. However, in the above examples, di is acceptable, as shown in (25b)–(27b), therefore it might be objected that these examples are simply variants of the locational use. However, there are reasons weighing against this assumption.

First, pada cannot be substituted for by kepada, as in (25c)–(27c), which runs counter to previous claims. However, it is interchangeable with ke, which is a directional preposition of Malay origin predominantly used for non-human locations, as shown in the (25d)-(27d). The unacceptability of kepada merely suggests that this preposition cannot occur with spatial non-human Landmarks. The acceptability of di, I argue, is a result of a complex historical process where the directional use of pada seems to encroach on the semantic range of di. A detailed discussion of this process is given in §4.5.

Secondly, although in the above examples pada occurs with verbs denoting movement and orientation, the directional uses are not confined to a particular class of verbs, which suggests that the directional meanings are not only generated by the verb. The same verb occurring with pada allows a crossed interpretation. A good example is the verb ikat ‘tie’ in (28a) and (29a). In the first occurrence, ikat suggests ‘tie with instrument X’, while in the second, it suggests ‘tie onto object X’. In (29a), the two ‘tie’ verbs, namely, ikat ‘tie’

106 Chapter 4

and kait ‘hook (a rope), tie around’, suggest ‘tie at object X’ and ‘tie onto object X’ respectively. In both instances, di is also acceptable, as in (28b)–(29b).

(28) a. Kepala ular ku-ikat dengan tali. Ujung tali yang lain head snake 1Sg-tie with rope end rope REL other

ku-ikatkan pada se-batang pohon. 1Sg-tie LOC one-CLASS tree ‘I tied the head of the snake with a rope. I tied the other end of the rope

onto a tree.’ (Tohari 1982:154)

b. Kepala ular kuikat dengan tali. Ujung tali yang lain kuikatkan di sebatang pohon.

(29) a. Cara mengikat, terlebih dulu mengikat kuat pada sisi method tie more first tie strong LOC side

yang panjang, kemudian secara silang tali di-kaitkan REL long then in.manner.of cross rope PASS-tie

pada sisi yang lain. LOC side REL other ‘To tie, first tie tightly on the long side (+> tie the long side tightly), then

tie the rope crosswise onto the other side.’

b. Cara mengikat, terlebih dulu mengikat kuat di sisi yang panjang kemudian secara silang tali dikaitkan di sisi yang lain.

‘To tie, first tie tightly on the long side (+> tie the long side tightly), then tie the rope crosswise on the other side.’

To the extent that the directional use of pada with non-human Landmarks is not confined to a particular class of verbs, it is similar to what Goldberg (1995:152–179) refers to as a caused-motion construction.3

The acceptability of both di and ke, and the unacceptability of kepada, as substitutes for pada in (28) and (29) serve to show that interchangeability is not always a reliable test for meaning distinction.

4.2.2.2 Directional use with human Landmarks

This use, formulated as ‘Pada5: Person X’s action or mental process is directed toward Y’ (Y can be a person, other animate beings, or a personified abstract entity such as God), represents the major distinction between pada and di in that in all instances of this use di is not acceptable, while kepada is. In some cases, the prepositions ke ‘to, toward’, sama ‘with, toward’, or akan ‘of, with, toward, about’ are also acceptable alternatives. Pada in this use can be observed in contexts involving transfer of an object, emotions and other thought processes, verbal communication, and visual and gestural actions. In all these contexts, the Trajector is oriented, either physically or mentally, toward the human Landmark.

3 Following Goldberg (1995:152), a caused-motion construction is defined as a construction where ‘a

causer argument directly causes the theme argument to move along a path designated by the directional phrase’.


It is worth mentioning here that the variants of this use may be considered as spatial only in so far as they involve concrete entities as the Trajector and Landmark. For example, ‘give’ constructions involve a transfer of a concrete object from person X to person (or other animate or personified entity) Y. However, in constructions involving emotion terms, the Trajector, i.e. the emotion expressed by the term, is an abstract concept. Similarly, in constructions involving other mental processes such as remembering and forgetting, there is no physical action involved.

These variants of the use are grouped together on the basis of one common feature, namely, they suggest that the human Landmark is the focus of a physical or mental activity. In this sense, the difference between spatial and abstract is not clear-cut, and as such, drawing a sharp distinction between the spatial and the abstract would obscure this common feature. Indeed, it will be shown later in the chapter that occurrences of pada in the discourse about human health are unified not through the spatial/abstract category, but rather, by the discourse topic itself.

4.2.2.2.1 Focus of transfer

As with the directional use in Pada4, the occurrence of pada with verbs of transfer such as ‘give’ also suggests that the Trajector undergoes a change of location, i.e. it moves from the giver to the givee. ‘Give’ verbs that occur with pada include menyerahkan ‘submit’, as in (30), berikan ‘give’, as in (31) and sampaikan ‘submit, forward’, as in (33). The theme can be a concrete entity, as in (30a) and (31a), or an abstract one, such as in (32a). The acceptability of kepada is shown in (30b)–(33b), while the unacceptability of di is shown in the (30c)–(33c).

(30) a. Dengan tersenyum Lia menyerahkan pekerjaan-nya pada Bu Guru. with smile Lia hand.in work-3Sg.POSS LOC mother teacher ‘With a smile Lia handed her work to the teacher.’ +> not to anyone else

(Ramlan 1980:95)

b. Dengan tersenyum Lia menyerahkan pekerjaannya kepada Bu Guru.

c. *Dengan tersenyum Lia menyerahkan pekerjaannya di Bu Guru.

(31) a. Tolong berikan surat ini pada orangtua-mu. please give letter this LOC parent-2Sg.POSS ‘Please give this letter to your parents.’ +> not to anyone else

(Lapoliwa 1992:41)

b. Tolong berikan surat ini kepada orangtuamu.

c. *Tolong berikan surat ini di orangtuamu.

(32) a. ... sesuai dengan sistem penomeran yang saya berikan pada anda. accord with system numbering REL 1Sg give LOC 2Pl ‘... according to the numbering system I gave to you.’ (S/E-DIAL)

b. sesuai dengan system penomeran yang saya berikan kepada anda.

c. *sesuai dengan sistem penomeran yang saya berikan di anda.

108 Chapter 4

(33) a. Laporan ini di-sampaikan pada Direktorat PTS. report this PASS-forward LOC directorate PTS ‘This report has been forwarded to the Directorate of PTS

(Private Universities).’ (Ramlan 1980:95)

b. Laporan ini disampaikan kepada Direktorat PTS.

c. *Laporan ini disampaikan di Direktorat PTS.

It should be mentioned that (33c) is not actually ill-formed, but it cannot mean that the report is given to the Directorate of PTS. Rather, it suggests that ‘the report was given at the Directorate of Private Universities’, di implicating ‘an activity conducted at a certain place’. Di is possible here because of the ambiguity of the passive verb disampaikan (or its corresponding active form menyampaikan) which can mean either ‘cause to reach someone’ or ‘give/deliver a speech’. Di is only acceptable in the second meaning.

In fact, the verb beri ‘give’ itself is also ambiguous between ‘give to someone’, as in (34a), and ‘put or apply something on an object’, as in (34b). Notice in (34c) that when the two meanings are conjoined, it results in a zeugmatic effect, which indicates that we are dealing with two distinct meanings of beri. In either case, the Landmark is treated as the endpoint of the Trajector’s movement.

(34) a. Beri garam itu pada ayah. give salt that LOC father ‘Give the salt to father.’ b. Beri garam pada ikan itu. give salt LOC fish that ‘Put some salt on that fish.’ c. *Beri garam pada ikan itu dan pada ayah. give salt LOC fish that and LOC father *‘Give/put the salt on the fish and to father.’

Zeugma is not felt with other verbs, such as siram ‘spray, pour’, ikat ‘tie’, and pegang ‘hold’ in (35)–(37) respectively, supporting the assumption that the two meanings in (34) are attributable to the ambiguity of the verb beri ‘give’ rather than of pada.

(35) Siramkan air itu pada tanaman dan pada ayah. spray water that LOC plant and LOC father ‘Spray/pour the water on the plant and on father.’ (36) Ujung tali yang satu ku-ikatkan pada sebatang pohon, end rope REL other 1Sg-tie LOC CLASS tree dan yang lain pada ayah. and REL other LOC father ‘I tied one end of the rope to a tree and the other to father.’

(37) Agar jangan jatuh satu tangan pegang erat-erat pada so.that NEG fall one hand hold tightly-RDP LOC dahan kayu dan satu pada John. branch wood and one LOC John ‘To prevent from falling, hold on tightly with one hand to the branch

and one to John.’


The occurrence of pada with other verbs similar to transfer verbs, such as menitipkan ‘entrust something to someone, leave something with someone’ seems to behave in a similar manner. Consider (38a) where the theme is an immovable object generally construed as being larger than the human Landmark. Here, pada can also be substituted for by kepada, as in (38b), but not by di, as in (38c).

(38) a. Pembantu itu menitipkan tanah-nya pada majikan-nya. servant that entrust land-3Sg.POSS LOC employer-3Sg.POSS ‘The servant left her/his land with (entrusted her/his land to) her/his employer.’

(Chaer 1992:30) +> not to anyone else

b. Pembantu itu menitipkan tanahnya kepada majikannya. c. *Pembantu itu menitipkan tanahnya di majikannya.

4.2.2.2.2 Focus of verbal communication

When pada occurs with verbs such as memberitahukan ‘inform’, mengatakan ‘say’, and menceritakan ‘tell’, the human Landmark serves as the focus of a verbal act (namely, the addressee). An addressee is prototypically human, however, non-human entities are not excluded (e.g. person says something to her/his dog, a dolphin trainer to the dolphins). In (39a)–(41a), pada can be substituted for by kepada ‘to, toward’ or ke ‘to, toward’, as seen in (39b)–(41b), and (39c)–(41c), respectively. Ke, however, makes the utterance sound more colloquial. The unacceptability of di is shown in the (39d)–(41d).

(39) a. Saya akan memberitahukan pada mereka agar menghentikan riset. 1Sg FUT inform LOC 3Pl so.that stop research ‘I will tell (to) them to end the research.’ (Ramlan 1980:95)

b. Saya akan memberitahukan kepada mereka agar menghentikan riset. c. Saya akan memberitahukan ke mereka agar menghentikan riset.4 d. *Saya akan memberitahukan di mereka agar menghentikan riset.

(40) a. dia mengatakan pada saya, Kalau… kita melihat kualitas 3Sg say LOC 1Sg if 1Pl see quality ‘He said to me, “If we see the quality”.’ (S/E-TUTO)

b. dia mengatakan kepada saya, Kalau kita melihat kualitas c. dia mengatakan ke saya, Kalau kita melihat kualitas d. *dia mengatakan di saya, Kalau kita melihat kualitas

(41) a. Tony telah menceritakan keributan antara kami pada dokter. Tony PERF tell argument between 1Pl LOC doctor Lit. ‘Tony has told of the argument between us to the doctor.’ ‘Tony has told the doctor about the argument between us.’ (Ramlan 1980:95)

4 It is important to note that some sentences may sound awkward when substituted for by ke for the reason

that making a sentence sound more colloquial may require some adjustment to the rest of items in that sentence, and not simply replacing the preposition. Thus, for instance, one may drop the verbal prefix meN- in memberitahu ‘inform’, and replace the conjunction agar ‘so that’ with supaya, and so on. Consequently, the examples with ke here may be judged unacceptable by some speakers, especially if they are presented in writing.

110 Chapter 4

b. Tony telah menceritakan keributan antara kami kepada dokter. c. Tony telah menceritakan keributan antara kami ke dokter. d. *Tony telah menceritakan keributan antara kami di dokter.5

Likewise in (42a)–(43a), kepada, which appears in the original source, can be substituted for by pada and ke, as shown in (42b)–(43b) and (42c)–(43c) respectively, but not with di, as in (42d)–(43d).

(42) a. Kita mengumumkan dulu kepada para pendengar .. bahwa acara 1Pl announce first DIR DEF listener that program

ini adalah e.. acara tutorial udara Universitas Terbuka. this be er program tutorial air university open ‘We will announce first to the listeners .. that this program is er .. an Open

University air tutorial.’ (S/E-TUTO)

b. Kita mengumumkan dulu pada para pendengar bahwa acara ini adalah acara tutorial udara Universitas Terbuka.

c. Kita mengumumkan dulu ke para pendengar bahwa acara ini adalah acara tutorial udara Universitas Terbuka.

d. *Kita mengumumkan dulu di para pendengar bahwa acara ini adalah acara tutorial udara Universitas Terbuka.

(43) a. dia akan meneruskan informasi itu .. kepada seluruh jajaran-nya 3Sg FUT continue information that DIR all row-3Sg.POSS ‘s/he will pass on the information .. to everyone in his/her section.’ (S/E-TUTO)

b. Dia akan meneruskan informasi itu pada seluruh jajarannya. c. Dia akan meneruskan informasi itu ke seluruh jajarannya. d. *Dia akan meneruskan informasi itu di seluruh jajarannya.

4.2.2.2.3 Focus of emotion

This variant of the directional use involves emotion terms such as malu ‘embarrassed’ in (44). In this case, pada may also be substituted for by kepada or sama ‘with, toward’, as in the (44b) and (44c) respectively, but not by di, as in the (44d). As noted by Ramlan (1980:96), sama is more colloquial.6

(44) a. Sukab merasa malu. Terutama pada tukang rokok itu. Sukab feel ashamed especially LOC seller cigarette that ‘Sukab feels embarrassed. Especially toward that cigarette seller.’ (W/N-WANI)

5 Di in this sentence can only mean at the doctor’s surgery (where Tony told someone else about his

argument with the speaker). 6 Sama also has a comitative meaning not discussed here, e.g. Dia pergi sama ibunya ‘S/he went with

her/his mother.’ Like pada, it is also of Sanskrit origin, and is used originally to mark plurality (Gonda 1952:396–397). For a discussion of sama in colloquial Jakartan Indonesian, see Sneddon (2001). Gil (2004) gives a semantic analysis of sama in Riau Indonesian and makes some comparison with sama in Jakarta Indonesian.


b. Sukab merasa malu. Terutama kepada tukang rokok itu. c. Sukab merasa malu. Terutama sama tukang rokok itu. d. *Sukab merasa malu. Terutama di tukang rokok itu.

The following example has kepada in the original but can be substituted for by either pada or sama, and not by di.

(45) a. Pagi-pagi ia sudah marah kepada tukang koran. morning-RDP 2Sg PERF angry DIR seller newspaper ‘It’s still early in the morning and s/he is already angry with the newspaper boy.’


b. Pagi-pagi ia sudah marah pada tukang koran.

c. Pagi-pagi ia sudah marah sama tukang koran.

d. *Pagi-pagi ia sudah marah di tukang koran

In (46) and (47), pada and sama occur in the same text written by the same person, which provides textual evidence of an alternating use between the two prepositions.

(46) Maka saya jadi balik sebel pada si LO yang saya anggap so 1Sg become in.turn annoyed LOC DEF LO REL 1Sg consider

tak bisa bekerja sama. NEG able work same ‘So I became annoyed with the LO whom I consider to be incapable of

cooperating.’ (W/N-KUAL)

(47) Terus.terang waktu itu saya jadi sebel bin kesal sama Ibu. frankly time that 1Sg become annoyed and annoyed with mother ‘Frankly, that time I became really annoyed with Mother.’ (W/N-KUAL)

This alternating use of pada and sama may be motivated by two factors. Firstly, the examples are from a personal account written by one of the readers of a women’s magazine (whose articles are written predominantly in standard Indonesian). The alternation may reflect the fact that a personal account written by a non-professional writer may not be as consciously crafted as to achieve style consistency. Secondly, in regard to the human Landmarks, it may be the case that the relationship between the author and the persons mentioned as the Landmarks (i.e. the LO in (46) and the mother in (47), respectively) influences preposition selection. In this case, pada, which is the more formal form of the two, can be said to reflect a distant social relationship between the author and the LO (the author had only met the LO briefly through work), while sama, the colloquial form, reflects a family relationship between the author and her mother.

Akan can also replace pada in occurrences with emotion terms, although in some contexts it seems less acceptable than others. For example, one can use it with the term sayang ‘love’, as in Dia sayang akan anaknya ‘S/he loves her/his child’ (literally, ‘S/he loves at her/his child’), but not with marah, as in (48), while in (49) it changes the meaning of the sentence.

(48) *Pagi-pagi ia sudah marah akan tukang koran. (cf. (45a))

(49) Sukab merasa malu. Terutama akan tukang rokok itu. ‘Sukab feels embarrassed. Especially about that cigarette seller.’

112 Chapter 4

As with marah, the occurrence of pada with the predicate sebel ‘annoyed’ in (46), does not make sense if replaced by akan, as in (50).

(50) *Maka saya jadi balik sebel akan si LO yang saya anggap tak bisa bekerja sama.

The oddness of akan here, though, seems to be caused by the fact that the verbs jadi and sebel are colloquial. Akan becomes acceptable when these verbs are replaced by their equivalent standard forms, i.e. with the addition of the prefix meN- in jadi and the change of the second vowel in sebel to become sebal.

(51) Maka saya menjadi balik sebal akan si LO yang saya anggap tak bisa bekerja sama.

‘So I in turn became annoyed with the LO whom I consider to be incapable of cooperating.’

Akan itself is a preposition whose common use is to mark Goal but also has other uses not discussed here (see Cummings 1991:163–164).7 Its unacceptability with marah is not entirely clear. According to Muslim (1999), akan occurred in classical Malay as a general preposition with an abstract semantic content and is used to mark the Goal, competing in use with other directional prepositions such as pada and kepada. In Indonesian, however, akan becomes restricted to formal contexts and expresses abstract relations.

Ke may sometimes be used with emotion terms such as marah, as in Kok marah ke saya sih! ‘How come you’re angry with me?’ which implicates something like ‘I’m not the person you should be angry with!’. However, in general, it is not acceptable. The reason as to why that is the case is not entirely clear.

4.2.2.2.4 Focus of other thought processes

In addition to emotion terms, pada also occurs with other terms referring to mental processes such as ingat ‘remember’ and lupa ‘forget’. Akan is also an alternative, but not ke or di. As with emotion verbs, the reason for the unacceptability of ke is unclear.

(52) a. Tapi tiba-tiba saya jadi teringat pada seorang teman but suddenly-RDP 1Sg become remember LOC CLASS friend Amerika Serikat. America United ‘But suddenly I was reminded of an American friend.’ (W/N-UNDA)

b. Tapi tiba-tiba saya jadi teringat akan seorang teman Amerika Serikat.

c. *Tapi tiba-tiba saya jadi teringat ke seorang teman Amerika Serikat.

d. *Tapi tiba-tiba saya jadi teringat di seorang teman Amerika Serikat.

(53) a. Dia sudah lupa pada sahabat-nya. 3Sg PERF forget LOC best.friend-3Sg.POSS Lit. ‘S/he has forgotten about her/his best friend.’ ‘S/he has forgotten her/his best friend.’

b. Dia sudah lupa akan sahabatnya. 7 Akan is also used as an auxiliary, for example Mereka akan datang ke sini besok ‘They will come here

tomorrow.’


c. *Dia sudah lupa ke sahabatnya. d. *Dia sudah lupa di sahabatnya.

(54) a. dan tentu saja terbayang-bayang pada wajah-nya yang tampan. and certain only imagine-RDP LOC face-3Sg REL handsome Lit. ‘and of course (I) remember (at) his handsome face.’ ‘and of course I remember his handsome face.’ (W/N-KUAL)

b. dan tentu saja terbayang-bayang akan wajahnya yang tampan.

c. *dan tentu saja terbayang-bayang ke wajahnya yang tampan.

d. *dan tentu saja terbayang-bayang di wajahnya yang tampan.

4.2.2.2.5 Focus of visual and gestural acts

When used to indicate visual or gestural direction, such as berpaling ‘turn to’ in (55), tersenyum ‘smile’ in (56), and melambaikan tangan ‘wave’ in (57), pada indicates that the human Landmark is the focus of the visual or gestural act. In all these examples, pada can also be substituted by kepada or ke (although in (56) the bound morpheme -nya would have to be replaced by its equivalent free morpheme dia ‘s/he’ since the form *kenya ‘at/to her/him’ does not exist), but not by di.

(55) a. Wanita tua itu menciumi pipi Ratna, kemudian berpaling pada woman old that kiss.repeatedly cheek Ratna then turn LOC

Bismo yang sedang meletakkan kopor di atas sebuah bangku. Bismo REL PRES put.down luggage LOC top CLASS bench ‘The old woman repeatedly kissed Ratna’s cheeks, then turned to Bismo who

was putting the luggage on the bench.’ (Ramlan 1980:94)

b. Wanita tua itu menciumi pipi Ratna kemudian berpaling kepada Bismo yang sedang meletakkan kopor di atas sebuah bangku.

c. Wanita tua itu menciumi pipi Ratna kemudian berpaling ke Bismo yang sedang meletakkan kopor di atas sebuah bangku.

d. *Wanita tua itu menciumi pipi Ratna kemudian berpaling di Bismo yang sedang meletakkan kopor di atas sebuah bangku.

(56) a. Lelaki itu tersenyum pada-nya. man that smile LOC-3Sg ‘The man smiled at her.’ (Ajidarma 1995:47)

b. Lelaki itu tersenyum kepadanya.

c. Lelaki itu tersenyum ke dia.

d. *Lelaki itu tersenyum di dia.

(57) a. Begitu-lah akhir-nya Sukab setiap hari melambaikan tangan pada like.that-EMP final-DEF Sukab every day wave hand LOC

114 Chapter 4

wanita di jendela loteng itu. woman LOC window upper.storey that ‘So finally, everyday Sukab gets to wave at the woman at the window of

the upper storey.’ (Ajidarma 1995:128)

b. Begitulah akhirnya Sukap setiap hari melambaikan tangan kepada wanita di jendela loteng itu.

c. Begitulah akhirnya Sukap setiap hari melambaikan tangan ke wanita di jendela loteng itu.

d. *Begitulah akhirnya Sukap setiap hari melambaikan tangan di wanita di jendela loteng itu.

Sama is also a possible alternative in these examples; however, given that this preposition tends to occur in colloquial discourse, its use would necessitate an adjustment or alteration of the sentences to reflect a colloquial style, which will not be attempted here (see footnotes 4 and 6).

Constructions with visual verbs are not restricted to human Landmarks, as shown in (58), as also described earlier in the preceding section.

(58) Ketika melewati pagar, ia menoleh ke atas, pada jendela when go.past fence 3Sg turn.to.look DIR above LOC window

yang terbuka. REL open ‘When he went past the fence, he looked up, to the open window.’

(Ajidarma 1995:53)

Ke can also occur in this context. The following example is taken from the same text (short story) as (58). Notice here that ke is used with the same verb menoleh ‘turn to look’ and refers to the same Landmark.

(59) Ia merasa harus selalu membeli sesuatu supaya ada alasan 3Sg feel must always buy something so.that exist reason

untuk menoleh ke jendela di atas loteng dan for turn.to.look DIR window LOC top upper.storey and

melambaikan tangan. wave hand ‘He felt he must always buy something so that there is a reason (for him)

to look up to the window on the upper storey and wave his hand.’ (W/N-WANI)

As mentioned, there is much emphasis in previous studies on the suitability of pada for human Landmarks. We have seen that instances with such Landmarks do not constitute one single meaning. The locational use in Pada3 suggests the meaning ‘X is associated with person Y’. Unlike di, its occurrence with a human Trajector and a human Landmark does not associate the human Landmark with their dwelling or workplace but rather, suggests the idea of ‘accompaniment’. In the directional use in Pada5 it suggests ‘X’s action or mental process is directed at Y’. The similarity and contrast between pada and di with human Landmarks is presented diagrammatically in Figure 4.1.


Figure 4.1: The relation between di and pada with human Landmarks

4.2.2.2.6 Pada and kepada

As mentioned, pada is often claimed to be a short form of kepada ‘to, toward’. In the following I examine this claim more closely to determine: (a) on what ground this assumption might be based, (b) to what extent the claim holds.

The interchangeability between pada and kepada is already illustrated in the directional uses above. Below are further examples.

(60) a. Budi menyerahkan uang pada ibu-nya. Budi give money LOC mother-3Sg.POSS ‘Budi gave money to his mother.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:41)

b. Budi menyerahkan uang kepada ibunya. (Lapoliwa 1992:41)

c. *Budi menyerahkan uang di ibunya.

(61) a. Aku mencoba mengkonsentrasikan diri pada pelajaran. 1Sg try concentrate self LOC lesson ‘I try to concentrate on my study.’ (Ramlan 1980:94)

b. Aku mencoba mengkonsentrasikan diri kepada pelajaran. (Ramlan 1980:94)

c. *Aku mencoba mengkonsentrasikan diri di pelajaran.

(62) a. Saya sudah rindu sekali pada ayah. 1Sg PERF miss very LOC father Lit. ‘I already miss at father very much.’ ‘I already miss father very much.’ (Ramlan 1980:95)

b. Saya sudah rindu sekali kepada ayah. (Ramlan 1980:95)

c. *Saya sudah rindu sekali di ayah.

DI/PADA Person/ PADA object X is associated with person Y Person X’s action

or mental process is directed toward Y Variants: - Person X gives something to Y - Person X says something to Y - Person X feels something toward Y - Person X remembers or forgets Y

- Person X looks at or gestures to Y

116 Chapter 4

According to Ramlan, these instances of pada can be categorized into three meanings according to thematic roles; in (60) it marks the Recipient or Beneficiary (penerima); in (61) it marks the Goal (or, in his term, arah yang dituju ‘the aimed direction’); and, in (62) it marks the Patient (penderita).

While assigning these roles may seem more accurate than simply stating that pada is to be used with human Landmarks, there are two objections that can be raised here. The first is that the category Patient, which is generally applied to an entity affected by an action, seems inappropriate for occurrences of pada with emotion terms such as (62) since the object of longing (which, in this case, is a person) cannot be thought of as being affected by any action at all. The second objection is that in practise, the assignment of the roles often proves difficult since roles may overlap, particularly when the Trajector and Landmark are abstract. If we say, for instance, Berita itu sudah diumumkan pada seluruh masyarakat ‘The news has been announced to the entire community’, is the Landmark seluruh masyarakat ‘the entire community’ here a Goal, Recipient, or both? One realizes that this kind of difficulty is encountered by semanticists in general, but the point here is that assigning the roles without at least pointing out this overlap does little in elucidating the meanings of pada. Furthermore, Ramlan’s account does not clarify the relation between pada and kepada.

Vimala (1984:37) notes that the animacy of the Landmark is the distinguishing feature. Kepada can only occur with an animate Landmark, while pada occurs with either animate or inanimate ones. We can see from Ramlan’s example in (63) that this constraint does not hold. The same goes for (64).

(63) Dia teringat kepada muatan kapal layar Bugis yang 3Sg be.reminded DIR load ship sail Bugis REL

di-tumpangi-nya. PASS-go.aboard-3Sg ‘S/he was reminded of the load on the Buginese sailing ship on which

s/he was a passenger.’ (Ramlan 1980:95)

(64) Dia teringat kepada sebuah cerita. 3Sg be.reminded DIR CLASS story ‘S/he is reminded of a story.’

However, in Vimala’s own example, shown in (65), indeed kepada is unacceptable with a spatial, non-human Landmark.

(65) a. Sampai-lah ia pada batas kota. arrive-EMP 3Sg LOC boundary city ‘(Finally) s/he arrived at the city boundary.’ (Vimala 1984:62)

b. *Sampailah ia kepada batas kota.

What seems to be the case here is that both pada and kepada can occur with human Landmarks to express directionality (‘to, toward a person’). It can also occur with non-human Landmarks if the relation is abstract, as in (63) and (64). However, it cannot occur with a spatial, non-human Landmark, as in (65). Pada, on the other hand, does not observe the same constraint. We can conclude, therefore, that pada is a short form of kepada only in directional uses involving human and abstract Landmarks.


The constraint on kepada is a reflection of its historical development from Classical Malay. Section 4.8 discusses this point in more detail. However, as a brief illustration, a frequency count in the Classical Malay text Hikayat Inderaputera (the manuscript of which is written by Mulyadi follows. The examples given here are taken from the online Malay Concordance Project or MCP (see Data Sources))which shows that 90% (of the total 720 tokens) of the occurrences of kepada are with human Landmarks, the remaining 10% being with spatial and abstract Landmarks. Some examples of kepada with non-human Landmarks are given below (from Mulyadi, quoted in MCP; also in Proudfoot 1990:141, 144).

(66) a. pergi kepada segala negeri ‘go to all places’ (MCP-IP 108:22; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 16008))

b. masuk kepada suatu bilik ‘go into a room’ (MCP-IP 148:11; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

c. dari permulaannya datang kepada kesudahannya ‘from beginning to end’ (MCP-IP:102:11; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

Meanwhile, pada shows quite the opposite. Only 18% (of the total 450 tokens) in the text are with human Landmarks, and the remaining 82% with other Landmarks (spatial, temporal, and abstract). In other words, kepada is predominantly used for humans, while pada is for non-humans. The pattern of kepada is possibly similar in Indonesian, however, to what extent the similarity holds is beyond our present scope. In any case, the assumption that kepada is only suitable for human Landmarks is a reflection of this predominant use, not of the full range of its uses.

As kepada is often shortened into pada, we saw in the earlier examples that it is also often shortened into ke, only when followed by human Landmarks. This is contrary to Ramlan’s claim (1980:74) that states that ke can only occur with inanimate Landmarks. Although it may be the case that ke was originally used in Malay to encode a place, in Indonesian this constraint no longer applies. Previous examples already provide a good case against Ramlan’s claim. Further evidence is found in (67), taken from a casual conversation. Here the speaker is talking about different speech situations where a person is required to use different registers. We can see that both pada and ke are selected for human Landmarks.

(67) D: Nah di-lihat, apakah, .. register yang dia pakai itu berobah. PRT pass-see whether register REL 3Sg use that change … Atau mungkin dalam satu lingkungan, .. e= lingkungan, or maybe LOC one environment er= environment misal-nya kerja, apakah register-nya tetep begitu, example-DEF work whether register-DEF remain like.that atau berbeda, or different 8 The date given here in brackets is the date of the published manuscript (see the project’s website for

further details).

118 Chapter 4

pada orang tertentu. LOC person particular (8 IUs intervene)

Barangkali. maybe

Apakah kalau le- lebih ke atasan-nya, .. dia whether if more DIR superordinate-3Sg.POSS 3Sg

menggunakan register lain use register other ‘Well, we should check whether .. the register s/he uses changes. …

Or maybe in one environment, .. er= environment, like work, whether the register remains like that, or is different, toward (pada) particular persons. (8 IUs intervene) Maybe. Is it that if it’s more toward (ke) her/his superordinate, .. s/he uses a different register’9

The selection of ke, rather than kepada or pada, with a human Landmark such as this seems to be contextually driven. The speaker is here talking to a friend, and therefore the context is informal. Ke, being monosyllabic, is the most suited to this context since it requires the least effort to produce and can encode either spatial or human Landmarks.

The distinction between pada and kepada is summarized in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: The relation between pada and kepada

In summary, the spatial meanings of pada are as follows.

Pada1: X is at place/position Y Pada2: X is part of Y Pada3: X is associated with person Y Pada4: X is oriented toward Y Pada5: Person X’s action or mental process is directed at Y

With the exception of Pada5, pada is interchangeable with di, which suggests that these two prepositions are closely similar. The unacceptability of di in the directional use with human Landmarks in Pada5 suggests the conventionalization of pada in denoting ‘to/toward a person’.


PADA ‘to, toward an abstract object’

‘to, toward a place or an object’ ‘to, toward a person’ PADA/KEPADA


Figure 4.3 illustrates the relation between the five meanings. The line between Pada3 and Pada5 indicates that these uses share ‘human Landmark’ as a common element, while the arrow indicates the direction of extension. It should be noted that the directionality assumed here is postulated at the synchronic level only.

Figure 4.3: Summary of the spatial meanings of pada

4.3 Pada and functional interaction

It was pointed out in the previous chapter that our knowledge of the typical functional interactions between different objects allows us to arrive at some default inferences. ‘Person sitting on a chair’, ‘cup on the table’, and ‘plant in the pot’ are some of the examples mentioned. Considering the similarities between pada and di, a question that arises is whether these functional relations can also be expressed with pada.

As shown in (68b) and (69b), the answer is negative. A possible reason for the unacceptability is that, although both pada and di can denote a position, stereotypical situations such as illustrated in these examples are assigned to di rather than pada. Thus we can say Arya di tempat tidur ‘Arya is in bed’ (+> lying on it to sleep), but not *Arya pada tempat tidur, and similarly, we can say kopi di cangkir ‘coffee in the cup’, but not *kopi pada cangkir.

(68) a. Saya pura-pura membaca koran di kursi goyang dekat 1Sg pretend-RDP read newspaper LOC chair move near

jendela taman belakang. window garden back ‘I pretended to read the newspaper on the rocking chair near the window

facing the back garden.’ +> sitting (W/N-CALO)

b. *Saya pura-pura membaca koran pada kursi goyang dekat jendela taman belakang.

Pada1: X is at place/position Y

Pada4: X is oriented

toward place/position Y

Pada2: X is part of Y

Pada3: X is associated with

person Y

Pada5: Person X’s action or mental

process is directed at Y

Variants: Person X gives something to Y Person X says something to Y Person X feels something toward Y Person X remembers or forgets Y Person X looks at or gestures to Y

120 Chapter 4

(69) a. hingga tua sekarang pun saya selalu minta istri saya until old now even 1Sg always ask wife 1Sg.POSS

sering-sering menyediakan jajanan seperti itu di meja. often-RDP prepare snack like that LOC table ‘even now in my old age I always ask my wife to frequently leave snacks

like those for me on the table.’ +> on the top surface (Kayam 1992:12)

b. *hingga tua sekarang pun saya selalu minta istri saya sering-sering menyediakan jajanan seperti itu pada meja.

The occurrence of pada, when acceptable, would indicate a marked situation. For example, ukiran di meja ‘carving on the table’ may mean a carving that is part of the table surface (i.e. a carved table) or a carving that is put on the table, while ukiran pada meja only suggests the former. Pakaian di keranjang suggests that the clothes are inside the basket, but pakaian pada keranjang indicates that the clothes are perhaps lying on the basket’s rim. Bicara di telepon means that the person speaks on the telephone’, but bicara pada telepon suggests that the person is speaking to the telephone.

One example seems to contradict this assumption, however. Below in (70) pada is selected to suggest a functional relation between a wardrobe and clothes.

(70) Ia meletakkan baju-nya pada lemari saya. 3Sg put clothes-3Sg.POSS LOC wardrobe 1Sg.POSS ‘S/he put her/his clothes in my wardrobe.’ (Datang 1989:62)

This seeming anomaly can be explained as follows. Here pada occurs as part of the phrasal verb meletakkan pada ‘put on’ where the Landmark is treated as goal. The presence of the verb meletakkan ‘put’ generates a specific inference, i.e. that the clothes are positioned in no other way but aflat on a shelf inside the wardrobe. The Landmark lemari saya ‘my wardrobe’, therefore, refers to this shelf. Pada is marked in the sense that it does not generate the normal default reading ‘inside the Landmark’s interior region’ (clothes are stored inside wardrobes).

This interpretation is supported by the fact that when the verb and agent are omitted, pada cannot convey the functional relationship between clothes and wardrobes, as in (71).

(71) *Baju-nya ada pada lemari saya. clothes-3Sg.POSS exist LOC wardrobe 1Sg.POSS ‘Her/his clothes are in my wardrobe.’

Suppose we replace the verb meletakkan ‘put’ with menggantungkan ‘hang’. In that case, pada implies that the clothes are hanging on the wardrobe door, or the back of the wardrobe door, but not inside the region of the wardrobe itself, which is the object’s most functional part. Notice in (72a) that if we reinforce the statement by using the complex form di dalam ‘inside’, the statement is odd. Di, on the other hand, can occur with either of the verbs to refer to that part, as in (72b).

(72) a. *Ia menggantungkan bajunya pada lemari saya, yang maksudnya di dalam lemari saya.

‘S/he hang her/his clothes on (the outside part of) my wardrobe, by which I mean inside my wardrobe.’


b. Ia meletakkan/menggantungkan bajunya di lemari saya, yang maksudnya di dalam lemari saya.

‘S/he put/hang her/his clothes in my wardrobe, by which I mean inside my wardrobe.’

Pada, then, is in some sense similar to the compound forms of di in that it often indicates a marked situation.

The assignment of di and pada to different ‘functional domains’ can be seen in terms of competition. As mentioned, historically pada is a borrowing from Sanskrit. The process of grammaticalization from a Sanskrit noun to a Malay preposition is discussed in §4.5, but to illustrate briefly, one of the senses of the Sanskrit noun is ‘place, position’. As pada becomes part of the vocabulary of Malay, it gradually competes with the existing Malay locative preposition di. One preposition is then more preferred in some areas of use, while the other is more preferred in other areas. At the same time, some of their uses remain overlapping.

4.4 Other extensions

4.4.1 Extensions of locational meanings

We have seen that the positional meaning Pada1 (‘X is at place/position Y’) extends to Pada3 (‘X is associated with person Y’) when the Landmark is human. These two meanings have further extensions involving abstract relations. The first extension suggests the notion ‘at abstract concept’, while the second, extended via Pada3, suggests the idea of an undesirable condition affecting humans.

The first extension (place position abstract concept) can be seen, for example, in fixed expressions such as pada hakekatnya ‘in essence’, pada kenyataannya ‘in reality’, pada mulanya or pada awalnya ‘at the beginning’, pada akhirnya ‘in the end’, pada pendapat (seseorang) ‘in (one’s) opinion’, pada umumnya ‘in general’, as in (73), and pada dasarnya (literally ‘on the base’) ‘basically’, as in (74). Being fixed expressions, pada cannot be substituted for by di or any other prepositions.

(73) Penyebab kematian pada umum-nya oleh kegagalan pernapasan cause death LOC general-DEF by failure respiratory

pada penderita penyakit pernapasan kronik yang berat, TB paru LOC sufferer illness respiratory chronic REL heavy TB lung

lanjut, bronkitis kronik berat, pneumonia dan tumor paru. advanced bronchitis chronic heavy pneumonia and tumor lung ‘The causes of death in general are respiratory failure in patients with chronic

respiratory problems, advanced tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, and lung cancer.’ (W/E-DAMP)

(74) Bahwa teori X itu adalah orang yang pada dasar-nya that theory X that be person REL LOC base-DEF

menurut pandangan dia tuh .. atau pandangan manajer according.to view 3Sg.POSS that or view manager

122 Chapter 4

tuh bahwa dia adalah orang yang mala=s ya. that that 3Sg be person REL lazy right ‘That theory X is a person who basically (lit. ‘on the base’) in his/her view ..

or in the view of a manager is a lazy person, right.’ (S/E-TUTO)

In the following, the notion ‘place/position’ can be interpreted non-spatially as ‘level’, as in (75a)–(76a). The excerpt in (75a) is taken from an exchange between two speakers in a lecture from the Indonesian Open University about managerial skills. Speaker A is referring to his position within the hierarchy of professional skill levels. The acceptability of di is shown in (75b)–(76b).

(75) a. A: Itu sebenarnya saya .. Pada tahap .. pekerja ya? That actually 1Sg LOC level worker yes

B: Iya. yes

A: Belum pada tahap manajer. IMPERF LOC level manager

A: ‘So I’m actually at the level of a worker, aren’t I?’ B: ‘Yes.’ A: ‘I’m not at the level of a manager yet’ OR:

‘Not at the level of a manager yet.’ (S/P-TUTO)

b. A: Itu sebenarnya saya .. Di tahap .. pekerja ya? that actually 1Sg LOC level worker yes

B: Iya. yes

A: Belum di tahap manajer. IMPERF LOC level manager

(76) a. Perundingan sudah sampai pada tingkat yang terakhir. negotiation PERF arrive LOC level REL final Lit. ‘The negotiation has arrived at the final level.’ ‘The negotiation has reached its final level.’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus (1988:950)

b. Perundingan sudah sampai di tingkat yang terakhir.

The notion ‘place/position’ can also be interpreted as ‘situation’, as in (77a), or a point in a sequence, as in (78a). Di can occur also, as in (77b)–(78b), however, it renders the sentence colloquial.

(77) a. Karena pada pilihan kedua lingkungan ikut terselamatkan. because LOC option second environment follow be.saved Lit. ‘Because at the second option the environment is also saved.’ ‘Because with the second option the environment is also saved.’ (W/E-MOBN)

b. Karena di pilihan kedua lingkungan ikut terselamatkan.


(78) a. Giliran-nya jatuh pada urutan ketiga. turn-3Sg.POSS fall LOC sequence third Lit. ‘His/her turn fell on the third in sequence.’ ‘His/her turn was third.’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:997)

b. Gilirannya jatuh di urutan ketiga.

The second non-spatial use of Pada1 extended via Pada3 (‘X is associated with person Y’) may suggest ‘characteristics/behaviour of person Y’, as in (79a)–(80a), or that the human Landmark is affected by an undesirable health condition, as shown in (81a)–(82a).

In (79a), from a lecture about business management, the speaker uses pada to refer to three personal qualities required to be a successful manager. The notion ‘X is associated with person Y’ is then extended to ‘quality/characteristic/behaviour X is associated with person Y’. Di may also occur in this context, as seen in (79b), however, as in the previous examples, it makes the utterance sound colloquial.

(79) a. Harus tiga-tiga-nya hadir .. pada diri-nya. must three-RDP-DEF present LOC self-3Sg Lit. ‘The three (personal qualities) must be present in her/himself’ ‘S/he must have all of the three (personal qualities).’ (S/E-TUTO)

b. Harus tiga-tiganya hadir di dirinya.

The following example is repeated from the previous chapter but di is here replaced by pada.

(80) Ternyata kesalahan itu ada pada saya, bukan pada anda. it.turns.out mistake that exist LOC 1Sg NEG LOC 2Sg/Pl Lit. ‘It turns out that the mistake was on me, not on you.’ ‘It turns out that it was my mistake, not yours.’

In (81a) and (82a), pada cannot be substituted for by di, as shown in (81b)–(82b). Two possible explanations can be offered for the unacceptability of di in these cases. Firstly, when appearing with certain verbs such as terjadi ‘happen’ in (81a), pada is conventionalized to an abstract meaning while di has a spatial meaning. Thus terjadi di ‘happen in/at’ refers to a spatial location (e.g. perampokan terjadi di sebuah bank ‘a robbery took place in a bank, gempa bumi terjadi di sebuah kota ‘an earthquake occurred in a city’), while terjadi pada ‘happen to’ suggests the meaning ‘something happens to someone, something befalls someone’. This conventionalization of pada and di into abstract and spatial meanings respectively, has been alluded to earlier in §4.2.1.

Secondly, in formal discourse (either spoken or written), the use of pada to refer to health problems in humans seems to be on its way to becoming lexicalized. Evidence in support of this is that recurring instances of pada within the context of human health generate a certain inference that undermines the spatial/abstract distinction. This inference in turn serves as a motivation for the development of a new meaning. A further discussion on this point is given in §4.5.2.

(81) a. iritasi mata langsung di-rasakan terjadi pada semua dokter irritation eye immediately PASS-feel happen LOC all doctor Lit. ‘eye irritation was immediately felt happening in all doctors’ ‘eye irritation was immediately suffered by all the doctors’ (W/E-DAMP)

b. ??iritasi mata langsung dirasakan terjadi di semua dokter.

124 Chapter 4

(82) a. ... gejala gangguan pernapasan pada masyarakat di symptom problem respiration LOC community LOC

Palembang lebih ringan. Palembang more light ‘... the symptom of respiratory problems in people in Palembang is less

serious.’ (W/E-DAMP)

b. ??gejala gangguan pernapasan di masyarakat di Palembang lebih ringan.

The extensions from Pada1 and Pada3 is summarized schematically in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Extensions of Pada1 and Pada3

The extended use of Pada2 ‘X is part of Y’ can be seen in cases such as (83a)–(85a). In (83a), the Landmark is a spatial entity (but not human) and the Trajector is an abstract entity, and the relation suggests that abstract entity X is a part of Landmark Y. The Trajector may also be an activity, as in (83a)–(84a), suggesting that a cultural practise (the presentation of nasi tumpeng ‘cone-shaped ceremonial rice’) constitutes a part of certain cultural traditions and ceremonies. As with the previous examples, di is also acceptable but renders the sentence colloquial.

(83) a. Likopen banyak di-jumpai pada tomat. lycopene much PASS-find LOC tomato ‘Lycopene is mostly found in tomatoes.’ (W/E-TOMA)

b. Likopen banyak dijumpai di tomat.

(84) a. Nasi tumpeng tidak hanya ada pada suku bangsa rice tumpeng NEG only exist LOC ethnic.group race

Jawa, karena berlaku juga dalam masyarakat Sunda, Javanese because occur also LOC community Sundanese

Madura, juga Bali. Madurese also Balinese ‘The tumpeng rice exists not only in Javanese society, since it is also

found in Sundanese, Madurese, and also Balinese societies.’ (W/E-NASI)

b. Nasi tumpeng tidak hanya ada di suku bangsa Jawa, karena berlaku juga dalam masyarakat Sunda, Madura, juga Bali.

Pada6: X is at abstract concept Y

Pada1: X is at place/position Y

Pada7: Characteristic/condition X is associated with person Y

Pada3: X is associated with person X


(85) a. Tumpeng ini di-sajikan pada selametan kelahiran. tumpeng this PASS-serve LOC ceremony birth ‘This tumpeng (cone-shaped ceremonial rice) is served on birth ceremonies.’

(W/E-NASI)

b. Tumpeng ini disajikan di selametan kelahiran.

The extensions from part-whole relations in Pada2 is shown below in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Extensions of Pada2

4.4.2 Extensions of directional meanings

The directional meanings ‘X is oriented toward place/position Y’ in Pada4 and ‘X’s action or mental process is directed at person Y’ in Pada5 are extended to abstract directional relations with an abstract Landmark as Goal, suggesting the notion ‘mental process/activity focused on an abstract concept’, as shown in (86a)–(91a). As in Pada5, di is not acceptable in any of these examples.

(86) a. Dendam pada liberalisme .. kolonialisme ya. revenge LOC liberalism colonialism yes ‘Feel revengeful toward liberalism .. colonialism, OK.’ (S/E-PMKI)

b. *Dendam di liberalisme .. kolonialisme ya.

(87) a. saya bukan-nya lupa pada ‘sumpah’ yang pernah saya ucapkan. 1Sg NEG-EMP forget LOC oath REL once 1Sg utter Lit. ‘it is not that I forgot at the oath I made.’ ‘it is not that I forgot the oath I made.’ (W/N-KUAL)

b. *saya bukannya lupa di ‘sumpah’ yang pernah saya ucapkan.

(88) a. Ia tidak bisa berkonsentrasi pada pekerjaan .... 3Sg NEG can concentrate LOC work ‘He cannot concentrate on his work ....’ (W/N-WANI)

b. *Ia tidak bisa berkonsentrasi di pekerjaan.10

10 Di here is acceptable for suggesting a locative meaning (‘S/he cannot concentrate at work’), but not a

directional meaning (‘S/he cannot concentrate on her/his work’).

Pada2: X is part of Y

Pada8: Activity X is part of abstract concept Y

Pada9: Abstract entity X is part of entity Y

126 Chapter 4

(89) a. perhatian kita terpusat pada program untuk anak-anak attention 1Pl be.focused LOC program for child-RDP ‘our attention is focussed on programs for children’ (W/E-ANAK)

b. *perhatian kita terpusat di program untuk anak-anak.

(90) a. pendekatan keberhasilan yang mengarah pada hasil yang di-inginkan. approach success REL aim LOC result REL PASS-desire ‘an approach to success which aims at the desired result.’ (W/E-ANAK)

b. *pendekatan keberhasilan yang mengarah di hasil yang diinginkan.

(91) a. perhatian kita sekarang justru lebih condong pada pilihan pertama. attention 1Pl now in.fact more lean LOC choice first ‘our present attention is in fact leaning more toward the first option.’ (W/E-MOBN)

b. *perhatian kita sekarang justru lebih condong di pilihan pertama.

In this extended directional use, speakers may also use either kepada or ke, instead of pada. Consider the following excerpt from a lecture on the emergence of puisi mbeling ‘tongue-and cheek poetry’, in which a similar directional mental verb (berorientasi ‘orientate toward’) is used. Here the speaker is saying that the political leanings of Indonesian writers in 1970s often reverberate in their works. Kepada is used in (92), however, 10 intonation units prior to this excerpt, in (93), ke is selected to refer to a similar Landmark, which provides an example of alternation.

(92) di dalam menciptakan karya seni itu .. kelihatan-nya selalu LOC inside create work art that appear-DEF always

.. mendongak .. ya look.up OK

.. atau berorientasi kepada politik .. atau garis politik yang or orientate toward politics or line politics REL

di-anut-nya ya. PASS-believe-3Sg OK ‘in creating a work of art they seem to always look up .. OK. .. or lean towards

(kepada) politics .. or towards their (particular) political outlook OK.’ (S/E-PMKI)

(93) Misal-nya .. Lekra itu example-DEF Lekra that

… afiliasi-nya ke affiliation-3Sg.POSS DIR

.. Partai Komunis Indonesia. party communist Indonesia ‘For example, …Lekra … whose affiliation (leaning) is toward (ke)

.. the Indonesian Communist Party.’ (S/E-PMKI)

A summary of the extensions of Pada4 and Pada5 are given in Figure 4.6.


Figure 4.6: Extension of Pada4 and Pada5

A summary of the abstract extensions of pada is given below:

Pada6: X is at abstract concept Y Pada7: Characteristic/condition X is associated with person Y Pada8: Activity X is part of abstract concept Y Pada9: Abstract entity X is part of entity Y Pada10: Mental processes X are directed at abstract concept Y

It is worth noting here that pada, which is semantically more specific than di, develops more metaphorical extensions. This pattern of extension is contrary to the pattern in English as noted by Dirven (1993:85), stated as follows: (a) ‘a preposition that denotes a vaguer or more general location is more apt to develop metaphorical extensions’, and (b) ‘a preposition that denotes a more concrete location or a specialized visual location or which has a negative polarity meaning is less apt to develop metaphorical extensions’.11 For example, ‘on’ forms fewer extensions compared to ‘in’ and ‘at’, because, unlike ‘in’ and ‘at’, ‘on’ has the concrete or specialized notion of ‘physical contact’ as its major meaning component.

The pattern in pada is probably a result of borrowing from Sanskrit. As will be shown in §4.5, pada is derived from two Sanskrit nouns that are already polysemous, thus the original senses are transferred to Indonesian (via Malay). Alternatively, there may be some sort of ‘functional assignment’ whereby the more general term is primarily assigned to the spatial domain, whereas the more specific term is primarily assigned to the abstract domain.

4.4.3 Temporal meaning

It is generally held that pada is a suitable preposition for indicating time. Some studies contend that in this use, pada is interchangeable with dalam; however, the explanations given are far from coherent. To begin, consider the quote from Lapoliwa (1992) below, which is supported by his examples in (94) and (95).

11 ‘Negative polarity’ here refers to expressions of negative states or circumstances, e.g. ‘under’ in the

expressions ‘under no circumstances’, ‘under attack’, ‘under arrest’ (Dirven 1993:83).

Pada4: X is oriented

toward Y

Pada5: Person X’s action or mental

process is directed at Y

Pada10: Mental processes X are directed at abstract concept Y

128 Chapter 4

Preposisi pada dipakai untuk menyatakan saat atau waktu yang berupa titik atau dianggap sebagai titik (karena singkatnya) bila dibandingkan dengan perjalanan waktu secara umum yang panjang. Pelengkap preposisi pada dapat berupa nomina yang menyatakan skala atau ukuran waktu, misalnya pukul, tanggal, hari, minggu, bulan, tahun, dan abad, dapat berupa nomina saat atau waktu. (bold words are italicized in the original)

‘The preposition pada is used to refer to a moment or time which is a point or thought of as a point (because of its brevity) compared to time measure in general which is long. The object of the preposition pada can be a noun indicating a time scale or time measure, such as pukul ‘o’clock’, tanggal ‘date’, hari ‘day’, minggu ‘week’, bulan ‘month’, tahun ‘year’, and abad ‘century’, or a noun such as saat ‘moment, time’ or waktu ‘moment, time’’ (Lapoliwa 1992:52).

(94) Dia meninggal pada pukul 6.00 sore. 3Sg die LOC hour 6.00 afternoon ‘S/he died at 6 pm.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:51)

(95) Dia di-tembak pada saat dia turun dari pesawat. 3Sg PASS-shoot LOC moment 3Sg get.off from plane ‘S/he was shot (at) the moment s/he got off the plane.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:51)

However, the above definition is misleading for two reasons. The first reason is that it suggests that pada refers to time as a point, which disregards the fact that prepositional meanings are deduceable not only from the meaning of the Landmark alone, but crucially, from its relation with the Trajector. What can be thought of as a point is, in some contexts, only the Trajector, and in some others, both the Trajector and Landmark. The second reason is that the definition says on the one hand that time is thought of as points—implying that time is a matter of conceptualization—while on the other, it compares these temporal points with ‘time measure in general’, suggesting that time can be objectively defined. As has been shown in many studies on the temporal use of prepositions (for English temporal expressions, see for example Wierzbicka 1993, Tyler and Evans 2003), time is, to a large extent, conceptually and culturally determined, hence comparing time in objective terms seems to serve little purpose.

Like Ramlan (1980) and the others, Lapoliwa states that in temporal use, pada is interchangeable with dalam, and supports his claim with the following examples.

(96) a. Pekerjaan ini harus selesai pada minggu/bulan/tahun/abad ini. work this must finish LOC week/month/year/century this ‘This work must be completed this week/month/year/century.’

(Lapoliwa 1992:53)

b. Pekerjaan ini harus selesai dalam minggu/bulan/tahun/abad ini. ‘This work must be completed during this week/month/year/century.’

(Lapoliwa 1992:53)

(97) a. Pada tahun ini pemerintah akan memperbaiki bendungan itu. LOC year this government FUT repair dam that ‘This year the government will repair the dam.’ (Chaer 1990:30)

b. Dalam tahun ini pemerintah akan memperbaiki bendungan itu. ‘Some time during this year the government will repair the dam.’

(Chaer 1990:30)


According to Lapoliwa, even though pada and dalam are interchangeable, they reflect different conceptualizations. That is, pada suggests the conceptualization of two coincident points, whereas dalam suggests a point within a bounded time (duration).

Preposisi dalam berbeda dari preposisi pada dalam hal orientasi. Preposisi dalam mengandung makna saat berupa titik di dalam suatu kurun waktu tertentu, sedangkan preposisi pada mengandung makna saat berupa titik pada suatu waktu yang dianggap berupa titik pula. (bold words are italicized in the original) ‘The preposition dalam differs from the preposition pada in orientation. The preposition dalam suggests a temporal point within a certain duration, whereas pada implies a temporal point anchored in a time also thought of as a point’ (1992:51).

However, this distinction does not seem to hold. As shown in (98) and (99), both pada and dalam can suggest bounded time, and also, the Trajector can be an activity that lasts over the period mentioned in the Landmark, rather than a punctual event construed as a point, as suggested by the previous examples.

(98) a. Pada liburan musim panas ia selalu berada di luar kota. LOC holiday season hot 3Sg always be.at.a.place LOC outside town ‘During summer holidays s/he is always out of town.’ +> not during any other

time

b. Dalam liburan musim panas ia selalu berada di luar kota.

(99) a. Saya sibuk sekali dalam minggu-minggu ini. 1Sg busy very LOC week-RDP this ‘I’m very busy during these coming weeks.’ +> not during any other time

b. Saya sibuk sekali pada minggu-minggu ini.

What distinguishes pada from dalam, rather, is the source of their extension. The temporal occurrences of pada, on the one hand, are extensions of the locational meaning ‘X is at place/position Y’ in Pada1. In temporal use, this meaning is understood as ‘sameness of time’ (i.e. ‘Event X happens at the same time as time Y’), much like the temporal use of di. The temporal cases of dalam, on the other hand, are extensions of its ‘inside’ meaning (this point is discussed further in Chapter 5). Consequently, pada is not always interchangeable with dalam, which is contrary to Lapoliwa’s claim.

A temporal relationship marked with pada may have as its Trajector, a punctual event construed as a point, and as its Landmark, a time also construed as a point, as in (100a)–(102a). In this variant of the use, pada cannot be substituted for by dalam, as in (100b)–(102b). Di is acceptable with the temporal nouns hari ‘day’ in (100c) and saat ‘moment’ in (102c), but not with pukul ‘o’clock’ in (101c) for reasons already discussed in the previous chapter.

(100) a. Pada hari Jumat sore Bik Encim datang. LOC day friday evening Bik Encim come ‘On Friday evening Bik Encim came.’ +> the arrival happened

at a particular day and time (W/N-CALO)

b. *Dalam hari Jumat sore Bik Encim datang.

c. Di hari Jumat sore Bik Encim datang.

130 Chapter 4

(101) a. ... di negeri ini orang mulai makan malam pada pukul 21.00. LOC country this people start eat night LOC hour 21.00 ‘... in this country, people start having dinner at 9 pm.’ +> dinner starts at a

particular time point (W/N-UNDA)

b. *... di negeri ini orang mulai makan dalam pukul 21.00.

c. *... di negeri ini orang mulai makan di pukul 21.00.

(102) a. Bahkan mungkin berhenti sama.sekali pada suatu saat tertentu even maybe stop at.all LOC INDEF moment particular

jika terjadi kemacetan total. if happen traffic.jam total ‘It may even stop completely at a certain time if there is a total traffic jam.’

+> the halt will occur at a particular time point (W/E-MOBN)

b. *Bahkan mungkin berhenti sama sekali dalam suatu saat tertentu jika terjadi kemacetan total.

c. Bahkan mungkin berhenti sama sekali di suatu saat tertentu jika terjadi kemacetan total.

Alternatively, the Landmark may be a bounded time, and the event is punctual, as in (103a), or an unspecified length of time, and the event is non-punctual, as in (104a). Dalam is acceptable only in the former case.

(103) a. Kapal itu tenggelam pada tahun 1985. ship that sink LOC year 1985 ‘The ship sank in 1985.’ +> some time during that year (Sneddon 1996:191)

b. Kapal itu tenggelam dalam tahun 1985.

c. Kapal itu tenggelam di tahun 1985.

(104) a. Sukab bertanya-tanya apakah masih mungkin pada zaman seperti Sukab wonder-RDP whether still possible LOC age like

sekarang seseorang bisa tidak mempunyai dosa. now someone can NEG have sin ‘Sukab is wondering whether it is still possible that in this day and age there

can be someone who has no sins (remains innocent).’ (W/N-WANI)

b. *Sukab bertanya-tanya apakah masih mungkin dalam zaman seperti sekarang seseorang bisa tidak mempunyai dosa.

c. Sukab bertanya-tanya apakah masih mungkin di zaman seperti sekarang seseorang bisa tidak mempunyai dosa.

Pada then, is interchangeable with dalam only when the temporal Landmark can be thought of as bounded, irrespective of whether the event that constitutes the Trajector is punctual or durative. This is because dalam can express only bounded time, whereas pada does not have this constraint. The contextual variants of pada are basically the same as those of di discussed in the previous chapter, which explains why pada can be substituted for by di in almost all temporal cases.


The extension from the spatial to temporal meaning is summarized below and schematized in Figure 4.7.

Pada11: Event X happens at the same time as time Y

Figure 4.7: Extension from Pada1 to temporal meaning

The interchangeability between pada and di can be summarized as follows.

Pada1 (X is at place/position Y): pada/di Pada2 (X is part of Y): pada/di12 Pada3 (X is associated with person Y): pada/di Pada4 (X oriented toward Y): pada/di13 Pada5 (Person X’s action/mental process is directed at person Y): pada/*di Pada6 (X is at abstract concept Y): pada/di Pada7 (Characteristic/condition X is associated with person Y): pada/*di Pada8 (Activity X is part of abstract concept Y): pada/di Pada9 (Abstract entity X is part of entity Y): pada/di Pada10 (Mental processes X are directed at abstract concept Y): pada/*di Pada11 (Event X happens at the same time as time Y): pada/di14

It is clear from this summary that pada is semantically similar to di in most uses but is completely distinct from it in directional meaning with human Landmarks in Pada5 and its extensions in Pada7 and Pada10. It is worth noting that in these meanings, pada requires two necessary elements:

(a) directionality, and not simply ‘dynamicity’ (movement). Both pada and di can occur in dynamic contexts in which the Trajector changes location, but only pada can express a directional sense,

(b) the Landmark is human or an abstract concept.

In the dynamic contexts of locational uses, pada and di are inter-substitutable, whereas in directional uses, pada is interchangeable with kepada ‘to, toward (person, or abstract concept)’ or ke ‘to, toward’, while di is not acceptable.

The semantic range of pada appears to ‘split’ between the locational uses (pada = di) and directional uses (pada = kepada/ke, but ≠ di). As will be demonstrated in the ensuing section, this seeming ‘split’ can be explained if we take into consideration the development of pada from Sanskrit.

12 Di is not acceptable when the part does not constitute a major defining feature of the whole. 13 Di is not acceptable in some caused-motion constructions. 14 Di is not acceptable with the temporal noun pukul ‘o’clock’.

Pada1: X is at place/position Y Pada11: Event X happens at the same

time as time Y

132 Chapter 4

4.5 The development of pada

It is often claimed that prepositions can be distinguished into two categories: static and dynamic. Static prepositions designate the Place of the Trajector, while dynamic ones denote Source, Path, and/or Goal. Dynamic relations are generally assumed to be elaborations of static ones. Consider the following quotes:

Prepositions fall into two categories: some are primarily static (e.g. at, in, under); others primarily dynamic (to, from, via). But static prepositions can be used in dynamic contexts (The cat ran under the bed), and dynamic ones in static contexts (The lamp is two feet from the wall). [...] but much of what holds true in the simple static cases carries over to dynamic contexts. Usually, some aspect of the action denoted by the verb involves a part of space, which is located with respect to the reference object by means of the preposition exactly as any static physical object would be. (Herskovits 1986:8)

If the TR-LM relation is a static one (i.e. it is instantiated at some point in time), the preposition designates the Place of the TR. The relation may also be dynamic. A dynamic relation is instantiated over some stretch of time, i.e. the TR moves with respect to the LM. Three kinds of dynamic relation can be distinguished: Goal, Source, Path. These are, in fact, elaborations of the more basic Place relation. (Taylor 1988:304)15

In general, prepositions that denote the place of a TR can also denote a goal, i.e., a place which the TR comes to occupy with respect to the LM. [...] A couple of examples:

a. The lamp is above the table. (place) b. Hang the lamp above the table. (goal)

(Taylor 1993:161)

Even ‘dynamic’ prepositions such as English ‘off’, ‘out (of)’ and ‘from’, generally considered as source prepositions (that is, the Landmark constitutes a place the Trajector moves away from), can have a static reading, e.g. ‘The motel is off the main road’, ‘Mandela is out of prison’, ‘John is from America’ (Taylor 1993:162). There are, however, other prepositions that are ‘primarily dynamic’ (i.e. they designate a Path and/or Goal, not a Place), such as English ‘to’ and its compounds ‘into’ and ‘onto’, and ‘towards’.

In this study I use the terms ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ for contextual relations, not meanings, for the following reasons: (a) prepositions are essentially atemporal, hence they do not encode movement, thus prepositions cannot be dynamic; (b) dynamism is generally derived from the verb or can be inferred from general knowledge. A preposition can derive a dynamic reading from context (e.g. ‘Hang the lamp above the table’), or it can encode orientation or directionality, as in English ‘to’. The locational and directional meanings of pada, then, are comparable to Taylor’s use of the terms ‘place preposition’ and ‘preposition of goal’, but are not equivalent to static and dynamic meanings respectively.

Taylor (1993:162) notes briefly that English ‘at’ has both locational and directional meanings: ‘While at is predominantly a place preposition, it has limited and specialized use as a preposition of goal. In this sense, at means, not that a TR comes to be located “at” a LM, but that TR is ‘aimed at, and/or forcefully propelled towards a LM’, as in the sentence They threw stones at the police. In other words, ‘at’ is both locational and directional. In its

15 TR and LM stand for Trajector and Landmark, respectively.


locational use, it occurs in a dynamic context to suggest ‘the Trajector comes to be at a place’, but in its directional use it only denotes an orientation toward the Landmark.

It is worth pointing out here that, although ‘at’ also has a directional use, Taylor notes that this use is ‘limited’ and ‘specialized’. With only one example given and no discussion on how this use fits into the semantic range of ‘at’, one is left to assume that the major use of ‘at’ remains locational. Taylor’s brief account of ‘at’ also creates an impression that, while there may be some exceptions, the view generally remains that prepositions are either locational or directional.

While this assumption is certainly true for di (for di is basically a preposition that can get a dynamic interpretation through context), its validity is called into question with pada. As we have seen from the synchronic description, pada has directional meanings that are not mere elaborations of the locational meanings. More importantly also, these directional meanings represent an important part of its semantic range.

In the ensuing discussion it will be shown that the seemingly divergent meanings of pada can be explained if we take into account its Sanskrit origin. As mentioned, pada is borrowed into Malay and Indonesian, probably indirectly, via other Austronesian languages such as Javanese and Sundanese (see Gonda 1952:35–38, de Casparis 1997:3, Jones 1984:5).16 The following discussion will demonstrate that those meanings are a result of a development from two Sanskrit nouns, each being polysemous in itself. The locational uses are derived from Sanskrit padá, while the directional uses are from pãda ‘foot’.

Gonda’s (1952) work on Sanskrit loanwords in Indonesian (1952:396) already mentions two possible hypotheses regarding the Sanskrit source of pada.17 One hypothesis, which he rejects, is that pada is derived from Sanskrit padá ‘site, abode, position’. The other hypothesis, which represents Gonda’s position, is that pada is derived from pãda ‘foot’. This is also the position taken by Wilkinson (1959:825), Jones (1984:10), and De Casparis (1997:27) in their etymological dictionaries. The following quote sums up Gonda’s position.

Finally, the very usual Malay pada the origin of which constitutes a crucial point. When the group ke-pada ‘towards’ is considered by itself, we might be tempted to interpret it as ka-, which is a very usual native element for denoting the idea of ‘towards, -ward’, and the Skt. pada- in the sense of ‘site, abode, position’ because, in the first place, this meaning may often be supposed to occur in such phrases as the class. Mal. datañ kêpada nêgêri ‘to go to(wards) the town’ < ‘to go to(wards) the place of the town’. In this instance datañ kênêgêri is more common. When, however, the action is directed towards a person (to go, give, bring, send etc. to a person, to ask a person etc.) the turn with kêpada is, on the other hand, most usual in classical Malay. As we have already observed in connection with other loan-words, such ‘periphrastic’ ways of speaking as ‘to Your Highness’ feet (or shoes)’ instead of ‘to Your Highness, to you’ are well-known in Malay, and an original ‘to your place, or position’ might be conjectured as underlying these long since very common and

16 It should be mentioned that although in many cases, the borrowing takes place via other Austronesian

languages, in many other cases, it is direct from Sanskrit to Malay (see de Casparis 1997:3). In this connection, it is difficult to determine whether pada is a case of direct or indirect borrowing. One might argue that the existence of the different senses of the term in Old Javanese is evidence of indirect borrowing; however, the substantiation of this claim would require a detailed analysis of data from Old Javanese, which will not be attempted here.

17 Other studies of Sanskrit loanwords in Malay and Indonesian, prior to or after Gonda’s, are mentioned in de Casparis (1997:3–4).

134 Chapter 4

general phrases. However, this etymological supposition encounters serious difficulties: pada alone has in many respects the same function as kêpada. Although pada may often be a short locution instead of kê-pada, it is usual as a polyvalent preposition to such an extent (e.g. duduk pada têmpatnya ‘to sit on his place’; pada sañkaku ‘in my opinion’; pada patutnya ‘as it should be, properly’; tahu pada ‘knowing about’; pada kêtika itu ‘at that moment’ etc.) that it fits in with the wide-spread polyvalent IN. prepositions. The Sanskrit etymology would involve assuming an old and widespread semantic evolution of this word. (1952:396; diacritics as in the original)

The two major points in Gonda’s account can be summarized as follows.

(a) Some scholars hypothesize that pada is derived from Sanskrit pada in the sense of ‘site, abode, position’. In a phrase such as datang pada/kepada negeri ‘to go to/towards the town’), the Malay directional preposition ka- ‘to, toward’ is added.18 Gonda rejects this hypothesis on the following ground. Although pada and kepada can denote a place, kepada is usually chosen when the action is directed toward a person (this point is also mentioned by Roolvink 1948:138). Considering that in Malay it is customary to address royalty by referring to their feet or footwear, e.g. Seri Pada ‘the royal feet’, (also Seri Paduka ‘the royal shoes’ (1952:220)), pada, then, can be assumed to have derived from the Sanskrit pãda meaning ‘foot’, and not ‘site, abode, position’.19

(b) The fact that pada can suggest an action directed to a person in the same way as kepada, as well as a place (e.g. duduk pada tempatnya ‘to sit on his place’), an abstract concept (e.g. pada sangkaku ‘in my opinion), or time (e.g. pada ketika itu ‘at that moment’) merely shows that this preposition is polysemous (or ‘polyvalent’, in Gonda’s term).

Despite its insights, Gonda’s account still leaves two questions unaddressed. The first is that, if it is correct that pada is derived from one Sanskrit source meaning ‘foot’, how does this noun develop into a preposition in Indonesian? Secondly, given that pada is polysemous, how is its directional sense, where it is similar to kepada (and to a lesser degree, ke) related to its other uses, namely for denoting place/position, part-whole relations, as well as abstract, and temporal relations?

In what follows it will be argued that pada does not develop from a single Sanskrit source, but rather, from two distinct sources, namely, pãda and padá with the source vowel neutralized and some semantic coalescence occurring. In other words, the two hypotheses mentioned by Gonda are both correct but they relate to different uses of pada. The directional meaning in Pada5 (Person X’s action/mental process is directed at person Y’) and its abstract extensions in Pada7 (Undesirable condition X affects person Y) and Pada9 (‘Mental processes X are directed at abstract concept Y’) develop from the noun pãda ‘foot’ through a recurring use of this source noun in an honorific context. The other spatial uses (Pada1, Pada2, Pada3, and Pada4) and their abstract and temporal extensions (Pada6,

18 In Indonesian, kepada is used for persons (or other animates) and abstract concepts, not for a place, thus

*datang kepada negeri is not acceptable. The sense ‘to, toward a place’ is expressed with the preposition ke.

19 It should be mentioned that some confusion is potentially created by an inconsistency of spelling of the Sanskrit term pãda ‘foot’ in Gonda’s book. In some parts of the book, e.g. on pp.142 and 466, it is spelt with a neutralized first vowel (pada), while in others, e.g. on p. 220, the long vowel is retained (pãda).


Pada7, Pada10, Pada11, Pada12, and Pada13) are derived from the noun padá in the sense of ‘site, abode, position’, and also, as shown below, ‘a sign, token, characteristic’.

To begin, consider the following definitions of the two source terms in Monier-Williams’s (1993[1899]) Sanskrit-English dictionary.20

pãda (masculine): ‘the foot (of men and animals), the plural form sometimes added to proper names or titles in token of respect’.

For example: deva-pãdãh ‘the king’s majesty’, Nãrãyana-pãda ‘the venerable Nãrãyana’, pãdanamra ‘bowing down to the feet of any one’ (Monier-Williams 1993[1899]:617).

This honorific use is also found in Old Javanese. For example: musapi lêbu ni pãda sang rsi ‘wipe the dust on the feet of the teacher/wise man’ (Zoetmulder 1982:1223), nyuñkemi pãda ‘to prostrate oneself before the feet of a superior’ (Gonda 1952:466).

It is listed in modern Javanese dictionaries as ‘classical’ or ‘literary’ use: padaning ulun ‘your majesty, your excellency’ (Horne 1974:417; also in Tim Penyusun Balai Bahasa Yogyakarta 2001:560), ngaras pada ‘to kiss someone’s foot to show humble respect’ (Horne 1974:417), ngraup pada ‘to bathe someone’s feet when asking his pardon’ (Horne 1974:417).

padá (neuter): 1. ‘a step, pace, stride; a footstep, trace, vestige, mark, the foot itself’. For example: padena ‘on foot’, pade pade ‘at every step, everywhere, on every occasion’ trini padãni Vishnoh ‘the three steps or footprints of Vishnu, i.e. the earth, the air, and the sky’, padagati ‘going on foot, manner of going, gait’,

2. ‘a sign, token, characteristic’ (no example given),

3. ‘position, rank, station, site, abode, home’; also ‘situation, place’. For example: padãt padam bhrãmayitvã ‘having caused to wander from place to place’ (Monier-Williams 1993[1899]:583).

Some examples in Old Javanese:

bhuwahpada ‘earth’ (Zoetmulder 1982:1223), swargapada ‘heaven’ (Zoetmulder 1982:1223).

20 Other senses such as ‘last line of a stanza’ also survive in modern Javanese (e.g. Olèhé nembang tekan

ing pada ‘He sang to the end of the stanza; He sang one stanza’ (Horne 1974:417)). The sense ‘any one in a set of numbers the sum of which is required’ is similar to the Malay sense ‘sufficiency (but no more)’, e.g. Belumlah pada ‘It would not be enough’, Padalah engkau membunoh ‘You have done enough killing’ (Wilkinson 1959:825), Itu pun tiada pada (MCP-SR 318:8).

136 Chapter 4

This use of pada is listed in modern Javanese dictionaries also as ‘classical’ or ‘literary’:

pada mandhala ‘world, earth’ (Horne 1974:417, Tim Penyusun Balai Bahasa Yogyakarta 2001:560).

One can see from the above definitions that, although the first-listed meanings revolve around foot and footsteps, they have different additional senses. Pãda has an additional honorific sense, while padá has a locative sense (physical and abstract location), as well as the sense ‘sign, token, characteristic’. In the next section I discuss the development of these two terms into the Indonesian preposition pada.

4.5.1 From Sanskrit pãda to Indonesian pada

As mentioned by Gonda, it is customary in Malay to show deference and humility by making reference to feet or objects related to feet, such as sandal (or slippers, shoes), footsole and dust (that is on the sandal or feet). We can see from Monier-Williams’s (1993[1899]) definition of pãda ‘foot’ that this Sanskrit noun already has this honorific sense. This sense is then borrowed into Javanese and Malay, as evident from the above examples. In the following I will show that a recurring use of pada in this honorific function in Classical Malay serves as a bridging context for the development of the directional meanings of Indonesian pada, via the compound form kepada ‘to, toward a person’. Meanwhile, other senses of Indonesian pada develop from a different source, namely, the noun padá.

For the purpose of analysis, I use data from the online database of Classical Malay texts prepared by the Malay Concordance Project (MCP), which total 57 texts and are written between the 1300s and early 1910.21 The sources of the examples cited are listed in the Data Sources.

Classical Malay has a number of terms for ‘foot’ and objects related to it that are used for deference, either as a royal title, term of address, or used in conjunction with a verb denoting an act of showing respect or subservience (e.g. sembah ‘act of respect made with palms together, fingertips upwards and touching the forehead’). Three of those terms are from Sanskrit while the others are either Malay or Javanese. The Sanskrit terms are pada ‘foot’ (from pãda), paduka ‘sandal, slippers, shoes’ (from pãduka ‘sandal’), duli ‘dust’ (as in the dust on one’s sandal, from dhuli). Terms from Malay are kaki ‘foot’ (see Adelaar 1992:131), telapakan ‘sole’ (or tapak kaki ‘sole of the foot’), the compound preposition ke bawah ‘towards below’ (i.e. towards the foot) or di bawah ‘underneath’ (i.e. underneath the feet). Other Sanskrit terms commonly used in the same context but which do not mean ‘foot’ are seri (from sri ‘splendour’, de Casparis 1997:33) and baginda ‘Majesty’ (from bhãgya ‘part, good fortune + the suffix -(n)da (de Casparis 1997:11)). Other terms which are also used but to a lesser extent are lebu ‘dust’ (Old Javanese; see Zoetmulder 1982) and cerpu ‘sandal’ (possibly of Malay origin). A royal title or term of address usually takes the form of a combination of any two or more of these words, e.g. duli seri pada ‘the dust of the splendiferous foot’, ke bawah telapakan ‘down to the footsole’, paduka seri baginda ‘the majesty’s slippers’, duli cerpu ‘the dust on the sandal’, seri paduka ‘the splendiferous slippers’ (also see (105)–(110) below). 21 The Malay Concordance Project gives the total number of words for each text but not the total number

for the whole corpus.


Some examples of the context in which the ‘foot’ terms are found are as follows. As mentioned, the noun pada meaning ‘foot’ is found in Malay in the compound form Seri Pada, which is used either as a royal title, as in (105), for referring to a royal person, as in (106), or addressing such a person, as in (107). Other than this, the noun does not appear to be used in any other functions. Other occurrences of pada are as a preposition.22

(105) Maka di-sebut orang ‘Seri Pada Mangkat di Kuala’ so PASS-call person splendour foot Mangkat LOC Kuala ‘So people call (him) ‘His Majesty Mangkat of Kuala’ . (MCP-SP 56:8;

Silsilah Perak, approx.1826)

(106) di balai pun hadir duli seri pada LOC hall EMP be.present dust splendour foot ‘in the hall was present His Majesty’ (MCP-MB 52:27; Salasilah Melayu

dan Bugis, 1865)

(107) Ampun duli seri pada, ini-lah nazar adinda-adinda. forgive dust splendour foot this-EMP promise younger.sibling-RDP ‘Forgive us, Your Majesty, this is our promise.’ (MCP-MB 83:29; Salasilah

Melayu dan Bugis, 1865)

Other honorific terms such as ke bawah ‘towards below’ and telapakan ‘sole’ are also used in compound form, as in (108), and similarly, paduka ‘shoes/slippers’ and seri ‘splendour’, and ke bawah ‘towards below’ and duli ‘dust’, in (109) and (110) respectively.

(108) Ampun tuan-ku ke bawah telapakan forgive master-1Sg.POSS DIR down sole ‘Forgive me Your Majesty’ (MCP-BI235:2b; Syair Bidasari, 1750 (MS 1825))

(109) Maka pada pagi-pagi hari Paduka Seri Sultan pun berangkat-lah so LOC morning day shoes splendour sultan EMP depart-EMP ‘So, early in the morning His Majesty the Sultan departed’ (MCP-BS2:13:50;

Bustan al-Salatin, 1640 (MS >1807))

(110) Patik sekalian mohonkan ampun kepada servant at.the.same.time plead forgiveness DIR

ke bawah duli tuan-ku. DIR below dust master-1Sg.POSS Lit. ‘I ask for pardon to you Your Majesty.’ ‘I ask your pardon, Your Majesty.’ (MCP-IP 54:39; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

Of the three Sanskrit nouns, paduka has the highest frequency, while duli has the second highest, and pada has the lowest frequency. The total frequency of these terms in the MCP corpus is as follows.

Duli 2351 Paduka 4180 Pada (as in Seri Pada) 48

22 As mentioned, pada has other functions which do not concern us here.

138 Chapter 4

Paduka is wholly used as an honorific term, as is duli, with the exception of 1 occurrence, shown in (111), where it literally means ‘dust’.

(111) manusia yang tubuh-nya dalam tanah jadi duli human.being REL body-1Sg.POSS inside ground become dust

yang sia. REL useless ‘a human being whose body is in the ground, turning into useless dust.’

(MCP-TS 22:39; Taj al-Salatin, 1603 (MS approx. 1775))

The fact that pada has the lowest frequency indicates that in Classical Malay, its function as a noun is already diminishing. The 48 occurrences of the noun pada are found in nine different texts, the highest occurrences being in one text written in the 1700s (Syair Bidasari, 13 tokens) and another text written in 1860s (Syair Raja Damsyik, 16 tokens); the rest are in texts written between the 1820s and 1890s.

The development from a noun into a preposition is evident with the formation of the compound form kepada (from the Malay directional preposition ke ‘to, toward’ + pada ‘foot’), seen in contexts where it co-occurs with the noun pada ‘foot’, as in (112) and (113).

(112) Bersuaka kepada hamba seri pada pay.tribute DIR slave splendour foot Lit. ‘To pay tribute to the slave of the splendiferous foot’ ‘To pay tribute to you, Your Majesty.’ (MCP-BI 191:3a; Syair Bidasari,

approx. 1750 (MS 1825))

(113) menyembah kepada duli seri pada pay.respect DIR dust splendour foot Lit. ‘to pay respect to the dust on the splendiferous foot’ ‘to pay respect to His Majesty’ (MCP-MB 263:10; Salasilah Melayu dan

Bugis, 1865)

Other compound forms are also formed, e.g. dari ‘from’ + pada > daripada ‘than’, dalam ‘inside’ + pada > dalam pada ‘meanwhile’.23

The adoption of Sanskrit nouns as honorific terms goes hand in hand with the view of Sanskrit being a language of high culture and learning (see Gonda 1982:11–13, 17–22), but raises the question as to the status of equivalent Malay terms for foot, i.e. whether they also participate in the same honorific function. The term telapakan ‘sole’ suggests a deeper sense of humbleness than pada in that it refers to something lower than the feet, based on the idea that addressing a royal person’s feet is not sufficiently humble (cf. de Casparis 1997:44). This term appears 13 times in the whole corpus, all as compound forms such as ke bawah telapakan ‘down to the sole’ or di bawah telapakan ‘on the sole’. Its variant, tapak kaki ‘footsole’ is also used in the same function.

The noun kaki (including tapak kaki ‘footsole’) is interesting for the following reason. Apart from being used literally to refer to human as well as animal feet, or used metaphorically, as in kaki bukit ‘foot of a hill’ or kaki gunung ‘foot of a mountain’, it also

23 Slametmuljana (1957) also mentions the form dipada. However, in the Malay texts, this form occurs as a

passive verb meaning ‘to be rendered sufficient or enough’, di- being used here as a passive prefix, not a preposition.


occurs within the context of deference. However, unlike the other terms, its predominant use is not as an honorific noun but as part of phrasal verbs indicating a sense of respect, humility, and submission, e.g. menyembah kaki ‘pay respect to someone’s feet’, sujud di kaki ‘pay respect by kneeling at someone’s feet’, meni(h)arap di kaki ‘lie face downward at someone’s feet’, menjilat tapak kaki ‘lick someone’s footsole’, mencium kaki ‘kiss someone’s feet’, memeluk kaki ‘embrace someone’s feet’, rebah di kaki ‘fall at someone’s feet’, all of which evoke the notion ‘come to person X’s feet to pay respect or show submission’. Example (114) is representative.

(114) maka kedua-nya mereka itu segera datang lalu sujud so both-DEF 3Pl that immediately come then kneel

meniharap pada kaki Sri Rama. lie.face.down LOC foot splendour Rama ‘so both of them came immediately and bowed deeply down at Sri Rama’s feet.’

(MCP-SR 201:3; Hikayat Seri Rama, date unknown (MS <1633))

This directional use with kaki also occurs with kepada, as shown in (115). In this particular example, tapak kaki has a similar meaning to a royal title.

(115) mengadukan hal kepada tapak kaki tuhan-ku tell matter DIR sole foot god-1Sg.POSS ‘to tell it to the footsole of my God’ (MCP-PEL 23:9; Hikayat Pelanduk Jenaka,

date unknown (MS approx. 1650))

Di is also found in a similar context, as in (116); it also co-occurs with pada within the same context to give a locational meaning ‘bow down to the ground where the respected person’s feet are’, as in (117). However, di cannot replace pada or kepada in (112)–(115). Moreover, it does not occur with duli and paduka or pada in Seri Pada.

(116) maka Hanuman pun meniarap sujud di kaki so Hanuman EMP lie.face.down bow.in.respect LOC foot

Sri Rama. splendour Rama ‘so Hanuman lay face downward at the foot of Sri Rama.’ (MCP-SR 387:10;

Hikayat Seri Rama, date unknown (MS <1633))

(117) Setelah Hanuman mendengar kata Sri Rama itu maka after Hanuman hear word splendour Rama that so

Hanuman pun kemalu-maluan maka ia pun meniharap Hanuman EMP turn.shy-RDP so 3Sg EMP lie.face.down

di tanah sujud pada kaki Sri Rama LOC ground pay.respect LOC foot splendour Rama ‘Upon hearing the Honourable Rama’s words, Hanuman turns so shy that

he then lay face down on the ground, paying respect to the Honourable Rama’s feet.’ (MCP-SR 795:8; Hikayat Seri Rama, date unknown (MS <1633))

Of importance here is that a significant proportion of the occurrences of kaki in the context of deference (40.2%, or 207 of the total 514 tokens), either in prepositional constructions with pada or kepada (pada/kepada kaki person X ‘to/toward the foot of X’), or in preposition-less (transitive) constructions (e.g. mencium kaki ‘kiss the feet (of person

140 Chapter 4

X)’). This proportion is significant, considering that there are already borrowed terms with a similar referential meaning. It indicates that as the honorific use of the noun pada ‘foot’ gradually diminishes and its prepositional use increases, kaki begins to assume the honorific function that pada gradually loses.

As the prepositional use increases, kepada, which may initially mean ‘to/toward a respected person’ becomes generalized to include people in general and also abstract concepts, and the first element of the compound, i.e. ke, is often deleted. In spoken Indonesian, ke, which in Classical Malay denotes a place, is also used for a person, particularly in casual contexts, as already illustrated earlier this chapter (see e.g. (44)–(48), (60)–(62), (72)).

The honorific use of terms referring to ‘foot’, whether they occur in prepositional or preposition-less constructions, suggest an important cultural script, namely, that one shows humility and deference by addressing or referring to a person’s feet or something lower than the feet. This script serves as the bridging context for the grammaticalization of the noun pãda into a directional preposition. The formality evoked by this script is retained in Indonesian in terms of pada being associated with the formal register.

4.5.2 From Sanskrit padá to Indonesian pada

The other spatial senses of pada (and their extensions), as mentioned, are derived from the Sanskrit noun padá in the senses of ‘position, rank, station, site, abode, home, situation, place’ and also ‘sign, token, characteristic’ (Monier-Williams 1993[1899]:583).

The locational meaning of Pada1 (‘X is at place/position Y’) can be considered as deriving from ‘place’ or ‘position’. The reason for borrowing a foreign term denoting a place when a Malay locative term (namely, di) is already available is probably because, unlike di, which basically denotes a place, Sanskrit padá has an abstract locative sense as well as a physical one: ‘position, rank, station, situation, site, abode, home, place’. Borrowing thus fulfils the need for expressing an abstract sense that is probably not available initially in the existing term. This explains why in contexts where either pada or di can occur, pada tends to be used for an abstract sense, while di is reserved for a locative sense. For example, in Indonesian, the phrasal phrase terjadi di ‘happen at’ has a spatial meaning, e.g. in Kecelakaan terjadi di perempatan ‘An accident happened at the intersection’, while terjadi pada ‘happen to or befall (someone)’ has an abstract meaning, e.g. Kemalangan terjadi pada keluarga itu ‘A misfortune befell that family’.

The ‘place’ sense of pada is found in the Malay compound noun mayapada ‘imaginary world’, which is from Sanskrit mãyã ‘illusion’ + pada ‘abode’ (de Casparis 1997:25). Examples of prepositional uses with locative meanings in Classical Malay are given in (118)–(122). Spatial use is exemplified in (118)–(120), while abstract and temporal uses are exemplified in (121) and (122) respectively.

(118) Maka di-lihat Inderaputra pada pulau Biram Dewa itu then PASS-see Inderaputra LOC island Biram Dewa that

ada se-orang perempuan exist one-CLASS woman ‘Then Indraputra saw (that) on the island of Biram Dewa there is a woman’

(MCP-IP 99:3; Hikayat Inderaputera, <1600 (MS 1600))


(119) Aku hendak memberi makan kuda-ku pada tempat ini. 1Sg want give eat horse-1Sg.POSS LOC place this ‘I want to feed my horse in this place.’ (MCP-IP 61:38; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

(120) suatu busur di-sangkutkan-nya pada bahu-nya INDEF bow PASS-sling-3Sg LOC shoulder-3Sg.POSS ‘he slung a bow on his shoulder’ (MCP-IP 143:48; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

(121) Hai anak-ku, pada bicara bunda baik juga anak-ku PRT child-1Sg.POSS LOC speech mother good also child-1Sg.POSS

diam di sini dahulu stay LOC here first Lit. ‘O, my child, in (your) mother’s speech, it is a good idea if my child

stays here first ....’ ‘O, my child, in my opinion, it is a good idea if you stay here for a while’


(122) Pada ketika ia mabuk ini adalah ketahuan laku-nya LOC when 3Sg drunk this be beknown deed-3Sg.POSS ‘It was when he was drunk like this that his deed was revealed’


With the exception of (120), the uses of pada above are not acceptable in Indonesian. In (118)–(119), di is normally used, the reason being that Indonesian pada cannot occur with a Landmark denoting a place unless it is indefinite (or quantified, e.g. pada tiap-tiap pulau ‘on every island’), as mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. In (121), the conventional Malay expression pada bicara X ‘in the speech of X’ (‘in X’s opinion’) is usually expressed in Indonesian with menurut pendapat/pikiran X ‘according to the opinion/ thought of X’ (‘in X’s opinion’). The temporal phrase pada ketika ‘at the time of, when’ in (122) is usually expressed in Indonesian with either pada waktu ‘at the time, when’, or waktu ‘when’ (e.g. waktu ia mabuk ‘when s/he was drunk’).

Classical Malay also has other spatial uses that do not occur in Indonesian, for example, those suggesting ‘entry into an enclosure’ and ‘below the surface of the Landmark and inside it’, as in (123a) and (124a) respectively. In Indonesian, these are expressed with dalam or di, as in (123b) and (124b).

(123) a. Maka Indraputra masuk pada suatu bilik so Indraputra go.in LOC INDEF room ‘So Indraputra went into a room’ (MCP-IP 106:28; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

b. Maka Indraputra masuk dalam suatu bilik.24

(124) a. di-rendamkan-nya pada cuka dan minyak PASS-immerse-3Sg LOC vinegar and oil ‘so she immersed it in vinegar and oil’ (MCP-IP 139:11; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

24 In this dynamic context ke ‘to, toward’ or ke dalam ‘into’ is also an acceptable alternative.

142 Chapter 4

b. direndamkannya di/dalam cuka dan minyak

Other Malay relational uses that do not occur in Indonesian are shown in (125a) and (126a). These cases are usually expressed in Indonesian either with a different preposition (e.g. tentang ‘about’ or akan ‘about, of’) or as a transitive construction, as shown in (125b) and (126b) respectively. These uses seem to be a development of the directional meaning of pada whereby the notion ‘to/toward a person’ is extended to ‘to, toward inanimate objects or abstract concepts’, similar to the directional sense of English ‘at’ mentioned by Taylor (1993) cited earlier, as shown in the literal translation below.

(125) a. ia tahu pada ilmu syair 3Sg know LOC branch.of.science verse ‘he knows about poetry’ (MCP-BB 146:6; Hikayat Bayan Budiman,

1371 (MS 1852))

b. ia tahu (tentang) ilmu syair

(126) a. semua-nya makan-lah pada hidangan-nya. all-DEF eat-EMP LOC food-DEF Lit. ‘They all eat at the food’ ‘They all eat the food’ (MCP-IP 183:15; Hikayat Inderaputera,

<1600 (MS 1600))

b. semuanya lalu makan hidangannya.

The dynamic occurrences of the locational meaning in Pada1 (‘X is at place/position Y’), where movement is suggested and the Landmark is treated as goal, may have developed either directly from the locative padá, or from a convergence of the locational meaning in padá and the directional meaning that is derived from pãda. The first possibility is based on the fact in Sanskrit, padá (in appropriately inflected forms) is already used in dynamic contexts, as seen in an earlier example from Monier-Williams (1993[1899]:583): padãt padam bhrãmayitvã ‘having caused to wander from place to place’, thus it is possible that this kind of context is carried through to Malay and Indonesian. Examples of this dynamic context from Classical Malay are shown in (127)–(129). The phrase pada kaki ‘to the foot’ in (129) also represents the directional honorific use mentioned earlier.

(127) burung itu pun terbang daripada suatu dahan pada suatu dahan. bird that EMP fly SRC INDEF branch LOC INDEF branch ‘the bird then flew from one branch to another branch.’ (MCP-IP 182:8; Hikayat

Inderaputera, <1600 (MS 1600))

(128) Maka di-halau-nya kambing-nya pada kolam itu hendak so PASS-herd-3Sg goat-3Sg LOC pond that want

di-beri-nya minum air. PASS-give-3Sg drink water ‘So he herded his goat to the pond to give him water.’ (MCP-IP 117:31;

Hikayat Inderaputera, <1600 (MS 1600))

(129) maka ia-pun menyembah pada kaki Sri Rama lalu ia so 3Sg-EMP pay.respect LOC foot honourable Rama then 3Sg


berjalan pada se-pohon kayu yang besar. walk LOC one-tree wood REL large ‘so he paid respect to the foot of the Honourable Rama then he walked

towards a large tree.’ (MCP-SR 303:2; Hikayat Seri Rama, date unknown (MS <1633))

The second possibility is based on the assumption that, as the Sanskrit pãda and padá converge into Malay pada, the directional meanings that are derived from pãda and are initially used with human Landmarks are then applied to spatial Landmarks to suggest a change of location.

Pada3 (‘X is associated with person Y’) may have also resulted from a convergence of directional and locational uses that are derived from Sanskrit pãda and padá respectively. Human Landmarks, which were initially confined to directional contexts (‘to, toward a person’), gradually come to tolerate locational contexts (e.g. as with pada kaki in (129)). Alternatively, it may have derived from the locational sense ‘site’ in padá (person as the site of an object or another person).25 Examples of spatial and abstract uses from Classical Malay are shown in (130)–(131) and (132)–(133) respectively.

(130) Hai Sri Rama, apa ada pada-mu PRT honourable Rama what exist LOC-2Sg

kenakan-lah kepada-ku. cause.to.come.into.contact-EMP DIR-1Sg Lit. ‘O, Honourable Rama, what is with you, aim/throw it at me.’ ‘O, Honourable Rama, whatever you have with you, aim/throw it at me.’


(131) hanya-lah daging-ku itu-lah yang ada pada-ku. only-EMP flesh-1Sg.POSS that-EMP REL exist LOC-1Sg Lit. ‘only my flesh is in me.’ ‘I have only my flesh in me’ (MCP-BB 64:8; Hikayat Bayan Budiman,

1371 (MS 1852))

(132) karena ada pada anak-ku suatu hikmat dapat because exist LOC child-1Sg.POSS INDEF magical.power can

menghidupkan orang mati. resurrect person dead Lit. ‘because in my child there is a magical power that can resurrect dead people.’ ‘because my child has the magical power to resurrect dead people.’


(133) Maka kata Sri Rama, “Hai Bermarajadiraja, so say honourable Rama hey Berma.king.of.all.kings

sungguh engkau laki-laki tetapi bicara laki-laki tiada ada pada-mu.” really 2Sg man-RDP but speech man NEG exist LOC-2Sg

25 This sense may have also given rise to Malay expressions of kin relations, as in genitive construction

nenek pada hamba ‘grandmother to me, my grandmother’ (MCP-IP 75:44; Hikayat Inderaputera, 1600).

144 Chapter 4

Lit. ‘So the Honourable Rama said, “O, Berma King of All Kings, indeed you are a man but man’s speech is not in you.”’

‘So the Honourable Rama said, “O, Berma King of All Kings, indeed you are a man but you do not speak like a man.”’(MCP-SR 203-8; Hikayat Seri Rama, date unknown (MS <1633))

The following example, showing kepada being used with a human Landmark in a locational context, further illustrates the convergence between the directional meaning and the locational meaning of pada. Here kepada does not suggest ‘to, toward person X’, but rather ‘person X is associated with person Y’. In Indonesian, kepada only has directional uses.

(134) Maka tinggal-lah Indraputra kepada perdana menteri. so stay-EMP Indraputra DIR prime minister ‘So Indraputra stays with the prime minister.’


The part-whole meaning of Pada2 (‘X is part of Y’) can be considered as having derived also from Sanskrit padá in the sense of ‘a sign, token, characteristic’, i.e. the part is a sign/token/characteristic of the whole. In Pada2, the relation is functionally defined. The following examples illustrate this use in Classical Malay: (135) and (136) represent spatial cases, while (137)–(138) represent abstract ones. In (135) and (136) pada suggests a bodypart-whole body relation, in (137) it suggests a position/rank in a hierarchy, and in (138) it suggests the notion ‘part of a structure/composition’.

(135) Maka pada hidung naga itu ada lubang seperti jarum besar-nya. so LOC nose dragon that exist hole like needle large-1Sg.POSS Lit. ‘So on the dragon’s nose there are holes as large as needles.’ ‘So on the dragon’s nose there are nostrils, each being the size of a needle.’


(136) Di-cabut-nya bulu-nya pada segala tubuh bayan itu. PASS-pluck-3Sg feather-3Sg.POSS LOC entire body parrot that ‘He plucked the feathers on the entire body of the parrot.’

(MCP-BB 11:22; Hikayat Bayan Budiman, 1371 (MS 1852))

(137) dan ia-lah yang sudah jadi mursyid kepala pada and 3Sg-EMP REL PERF become religious.teacher head LOC

tarikat itu di dalam negeri Riau ada-nya. order that LOC inside country Riau exist-DEF ‘and he is the one who has become the chief religious teacher in that order

in Riau alone.’ (MCP-TN 425:18; Tuhfat al-Nafis, 1866 (MS 1890))

(138) Wang hasil-hasil Riau sudah di-perjanjikan di dalam konterak money result-RDP Riau PERF PASS-promise LOC inside contract

pada pasal yang keenambelas itu, wang milik Raja Muda. LOC article REL sixteenth that money possession king young ‘The money earned by Riau that is already promised in the contract in section/

article 16, is money belonging to the Prince.’ (MCP-TN 433:3; Tuhfat al-Nafis, 1866 (MS 1890))


The senses ‘a step, pace, stride; a footstep, trace, vestige, mark, the foot itself’ of padá do not seem to find their way into the prepositional meanings of pada, possibly because this sense is closely similar to pãda ‘foot’.

The development of pada is schematized in Figure 4.8. The single arrows indicate the direction of the development, while the up-down arrows indicate a convergence between meanings.

Skt pãda ‘foot’ Mal pada ‘royal foot’, pada/kepada

‘to the royal foot, to a royal person’ > ‘to/toward a person/abstract concept’

Ind pada ‘toward a person/place/abstract concept’ (=kepada/ke)

Skt padá Mal pada ‘position, rank, ‘at a place/abstract location/time’ station, situation, site, abode, place;

Ind pada ‘at a place/abstract location, time’ ‘with/in a person’ Skt padá Mal pada ‘part of’ ‘sign, token, characteristic’

Ind pada ‘part of’

Figure 4.8: The development of pada from Sanskrit to Indonesian

To conclude, I have argued that pada is a result of a grammaticalization process where two distinct Sanskrit nouns develop into one preposition. The spatial directional use with human Landmarks in Pada5 is derived from a source noun that is distinct from the source noun of its other uses in Pada1, Pada2, Pada3, Pada4.

The fact that the spatial meanings of pada come from two sources becomes evident only when we take into account the history of the term. This finding presents a problem for the assumption that prepositions are either locational or directional, and that directional uses are elaborations of locational ones, because pada is not only locational but also directional. Moreover, the latter is not simply an elaboration of the former.

146 Chapter 4

It is worth mentioning that the development of a preposition from a noun referring to a body part such as foot is not a Malay-specific or Austronesian-specific phenomenon. As many studies on grammaticalization show, this pattern of grammaticalization is universal (see for example Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991, Brugman and Macaulay 1986, Svorou 1994, Heine 1997, Hopper and Traugott 2003), although the motivation may differ.

The exploration of the historical background of pada has proven fruitful in that, (a) the relation between its locational and directional meanings can be more satisfactorily explained, and (b) by tracing its context of use in Classical Malay, we can better understand why this preposition is associated with the formal register in Indonesian.

4.6 Pada and affective meaning

Locative expressions often reflect speakers’ construals of spatial arrangements of objects. As has been mentioned in the preceding chapters, factors relating to construal such as viewpoint (the angle from which an observer views the objects) and the perceptibility of the objects all play a role in the choice of expression (Herskovits 1986:128, Talmy 1983, Langacker 1991:12, Svorou 1994:9) As an example, the English preposition ‘at’ in ‘June is at the supermarket’ suggests a distant viewpoint, that is, the speaker is at some distance away from the supermarket and does not have a direct perceptual access to the entities mentioned, unlike ‘in’, which, used in the same utterance, would suggest that the speaker is close by and can see the supermarket, and perhaps also June.

In the next two sections I would like to take the spatial notion of viewpoint further and suggest that it be understood in pragmatic terms, firstly, as a notion suggesting not only physical and perceptual arrangement but also the psychological relation between the relevant entities and the speaker. Pada, as will be shown, is often selected to reflect a situation that bears some sort of psychological relevance to the speaker or observer. Secondly, viewpoint can be understood as a notion referring to the manner of mentally viewing a certain situation in a way which gradually serves as a bridging context for lexicalization. With this connection, I will show that in the context of human health, pada is repeatedly selected to refer to illnesses/diseases which affect humans, and to a lesser extent, animals, irrespective of whether the Trajector is perceptible to the observer or not. It is the context, therefore, that dictates the selection of preposition. To this extent, prepositions can also be said to have an affective meaning. That is, locative expressions can also reflect attitudes and emotions.

4.6.1 Viewpoint contrast

In contexts where pada is used alternatingly with di to refer to the same (or similar) spatial configuration, the selection often reflects a contrast in viewpoint, both in the physical/perceptual sense and psychological sense.

To illustrate the point, consider the following extract from a short story about a husband’s infidelity. In the story, Sukab, the husband, through his carelessness, has inadvertently allowed his wife to find out about his affair. Traces of lipstick are found on his undergarment, and this triggers a heated and loud argument between the husband and wife. Meanwhile, their neighbours, upon overhearing the argument, are shocked by what a seemingly quiet and faithful man has done to his wife. The extract in (139) is from the opening paragraph describing what Sukab’s wife, Asih, sees on her husband’s underwear.


Pada here suggests two things. First, that the focus of the prepositional relation is on the surface of the Landmark. Second, that the Trajector and Landmark are being perceptually accessed at a close range. In other words, pada suggests a close-up viewpoint.

(139) Bercak-bercak lipstik berwarna merah menyala itu begitu jelas spot-RDP lipstick have.colour red bright that so clear

berlepotan pada celana dalam merek Hings yang sudah tidak smudged LOC pants inside brand Hings REL PERF NEG

begitu putih dan sudah agak kendor karet-nya. so white and PERF rather loose rubber-3Sg.POSS ‘The bright red lipstick stains were clearly smudged on (pada) the underwear

with the Hings brand which is not so white anymore and whose waistband has gone rather loose.’ (Ajidarma 1995:13)

The following two extracts show the reaction of Sukab’s neighbours upon hearing about his infidelity. Notice in (140b) that di is selected for the same spatial configuration. The switch to di from pada here suggests a shift in viewpoint, from a close-up to a distant viewpoint. Distant viewpoint corresponds to the speaker’s (i.e. one of the neighbours) having no direct perceptual access to the Trajector and Landmark, and even though they may be shocked by the news, they are much less affected by Sukab’s action than his wife is. Di implies this psychological distance.

(140) a. “Celana dalam suami-nya ada lipstik-nya.” pant inside husband-3Sg.POSS exist lipstick-DEF ‘Her husband’s underwear has lipstick stains on it.’ (1995:14)

b. “Masak sampai ada sisa lipstik di celana dalam.” impossible until exist remnant lipstick LOC pant inside ‘It’s impossible that there are lipstick stains on (di) the underwear.’ (1995:15)

Later in the story, the writer reselects di to describe the same spatial configuration. The extract in (141) describes Sukab’s absentmindedness and his obliviousness to the uproar he has caused. Di here suggests his physical and mental distance from the object.

(141) Batin Sukab bertanya-tanya. Belakangan ini ia selalu merasa mind Sukab wonder-RDP lately this 3Sg always feel

capek. Ia lupa sama.sekali, belum membersihkan sisa lipstik tired 3Sg forget altogether IMPERF clean remnant lipstick

Maya di celana dalam-nya. Maya LOC pant inside-3Sg.POSS ‘Sukab was wondering. Lately he has been feeling tired. He forgot that he

had not cleaned the stains from Maya’s lipstick on (di) his underwear.’ (1995:22–23)

Viewpoint contrast is also reflected in nested constructions where pada is selected for the smaller, more specific location that is nested against a larger one, which is expressed with di. As with the preceding extracts, in (142), from a different short story by the same author, pada is used to refer to the location of a Trajector (a woman) who is perceptually accessible to and has a psychological impact on the main character (who happens to be called Sukab also). The story describes Sukab who is falling in love with a woman who

148 Chapter 4

appears everyday at the upper window of a two-storey building which he passes on his way to work, and to whom he starts waving each time he passes by. In this example, the Trajector’s location (a window) is nested within a larger spatial setting (the upper storey).

(142) Dan pada jendela mungil di bagian yang tidak ber-teras itu and LOC window small LOC part REL NEG have-porch that

Sukab selalu melihat se-orang wanita yang seperti-nya cuma Sukab always see one-CLASS woman REL like-DEF only

ada dalam dongeng, cantik jelita dan tanpa dosa. exist LOC fairytale beautiful lovely and without sin ‘And on (pada) the small window on (di) the part (of the two-storey building)

with no porch Sukab always sees a woman who looks like someone from a fairytale, very beautiful and pure.’ (Ajidarma 1995:124)

The contrast between pada and di, then, reflects not only the fact that pada suggests contact between the woman and the window (e.g. leaning on the pane), which constitutes the meaning in Pada1, but more importantly also, that the window is the most immediately relevant portion of space. The fact that it is nested within a larger setting is simply a natural consequence of its being what it is (a person appearing at a window suggests that the window is attached to, and is a part of, a building, and not, for instance, a loose window frame).

The next extract is from part of the same story in which the main character has moved away from the window scene. Di here suggests the spatial and hence perceptual distance between the Trajector and the observer.

(143) Tapi kini di jendela loteng itu ada seorang wanita but now LOC window upper.storey that exist INDEF woman

yang cantik jelita dan tanpa dosa. REL beautiful lovely and without sin ‘But now on the upper storey window there is a woman who is very beautiful

and pure.’ (1995:126)

The story proceeds by describing an obsession the main character develops for the woman, whom he does not personally know but waves to everyday from across the street. It ends with the inexplicable disappearance of the woman from that window. The choice of di below implies the perceptual inaccessibility of the Trajector.

(144) Tapi tak pernah ada seorang pun di jendela ber-teralis but NEG ever exist INDEF at.all LOC window have-trellis

sarang laba-laba itu. web spider-RDP that ‘But never again was there anyone on the window with the spiderweb trellis.’

(1995:132)

At the closing of the story, however, pada is once again selected in the last sentence to refer to the location of the woman, as in (145). In this case, it suggests a close-up viewpoint but in the sense that the Trajector is psychologically close to the observer even though it may be perceptually absent (although the woman has disappeared, she remains the character’s object of obsession).


(145) Ia hanya ingin menikah dengan wanita se-indah impian yang 3Sg only want marry with woman as-beautiful dream REL

dulu selalu nampak pada jendela di atas loteng. before always appear LOC window LOC top upper.storey ‘He only wants to be married to the woman as beautiful as a dream, who used

to always appear at the window on the upper storey.’ (Ajidarma 1995:132)

The above examples show that there is a correlation between preposition selection and viewpoint, and also amplifies the Trajector-Landmark asymmetry. Pada seems to correlate with a close-up viewpoint and a smaller spatial setting, while di with distant viewpoint and a larger spatial setting. A close-up viewpoint also indicates perceptual accessibility of the Trajector and/or its psychological closeness to the observer, while a remote viewpoint implies perceptual inaccessibility and less psychological relevance or impact.

Contrast in psychological distance is also reflected in the use of pada and di in (146). This extract from a novel describes the main character’s inner thought, where he is comparing the physical beauty of two women in his life, namely his deceased mother, to whom he has a particular attachment, and Srintil, a dancer with whom he is in love.

(146) Tetapi aku tidak bisa memastikan apakah Emak mempunyai cambang but 1Sg NEG can make.certain whether mother have down

halus di kedua pipi-nya seperti hal-nya Srintil. soft LOC both cheek-3Sg.POSS like matter-DEF Srintil

Atau, apakah juga ada lesung.pipit pada pipi kiri Emak. or do also exist dimple LOC cheek left mother

Srintil bertambah manis dengan lekuk kecil di pipi Srintil become.more sweet with hollow small LOC cheek

kiri-nya bila ia sedang tertawa. left-3Sg.POSS when 3Sg IMPERF smile ‘But I cannot be certain whether mother had soft facial down on (di) both

sides of her cheeks like Srintil. Or, is there also a dimple on (pada) mother’s left cheek. Srintil looks sweeter with the dimple on (di) her left cheek when she smiles.’ (Tohari 1988:67)

In the first occurrence of di, the character is thinking about the soft facial down he has observed in Srintil (mentioned in the preceding discourse), and the comparison with his mother comes as an afterthought. However, notice that, as he pursues the comparison further, and concentrates on thinking about dimples on his mother’s face, we see a switch to pada, which can be interpreted as a reflection of the character’s attachment to the mother. Di is selected again when the thought switches back to Srintil. Pada, therefore, reflects the psychological closeness between the character and his mother.

In short, pada suggests a close-up viewpoint both in the perceptual and psychological sense, in that something that is perceptually accessible may also be something which is psychologically close to the observer. In this sense, pada denotes not only a physical location but also suggests an affective meaning in the sense that it is used to express the attitudes and emotions of the speaker or observer toward the objects mentioned in the prepositional relations.

150 Chapter 4

4.6.2 Pada in the discourse about human health

Descriptions of prepositional meanings generally assume as unproblematic that spatial relations can be distinguished from non-spatial ones (namely, abstract and temporal relations), and that for the purpose of semantic analysis, they need to be distinguished. To a large extent, this is also the assumption I follow. I mentioned previously that the distinction is not always clear-cut, as we have seen in the directional use of pada involving human Landmarks where the relation may involve a concrete entity as its Trajector (e.g. in ‘give’ constructions) or an abstract Trajector (e.g. in constructions suggesting mental processes). There is a further area of use of pada, namely, in the context of human health, where it is the context rather than the spatial or abstract category that unifies the meaning category. In this use, the recurrent use of pada to suggest illnesses/diseases in humans evokes a certain inference that undermines the spatial/abstract distinction and provides a contextual link, or ‘bridging context’ (Evans and Wilkins 2000:550) for lexicalization.

To illustrate the point, consider the definitions of penyakit ‘illness, disease’ in (147a) and (147b) and kanker ‘cancer’ in (147d), all taken from the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia ‘Comprehensive Indonesian dictionary’.

(147) a. penyakit: 1. sesuatu yang menyebabkan terjadinya gangguan pada makhluk hidup;

2. gangguan kesehatan yang disebabkan oleh bakteri, virus, atau kelainan sistem faal atau jaringan pada organ tubuh (pada makhluk hidup).

‘illness, disease’: ‘1. something which causes a problem on human beings; 2. a health problem

caused by a bacteria, virus, or abnormality in bodily function or in the network of the organs (on human beings).’ (1988:796)

b. penyakit bang: penyakit yang disebabkan oleh infeksi kuman brucella abortus bang,

menyerang kedua jenis kelamin (jantan/betina) pada alat-alat reproduksi sehingga mengakibatkan keguguran pada betina, penularannya melalui mulut, mata, hidung, dan luka pada kulit.

‘bang disease’: ‘a disease caused by an infection from the microbe brucella abortus bang,

which attacks both sexes (male/female) in their reproduction system so that it causes miscarriage in women, transmitted through the mouth, eyes, nose, and an open wound on the skin.’ (1988:769)

c. penyakit dengue: penyakit virus yang ditularkan oleh nyamuk tertentu pada manusia dengan

gejala misalnya perasaan nyeri pada kepala, mata, otot, dan sendi-sendi.

‘dengue fever’ ‘a viral disease which is transmitted by a certain type of mosquito on

humans, with symptoms such as aches and pains on the head, eyes, muscles, and joints.’ (1988:796)


d. kanker: penyakit yang disebabkan oleh ketidakteraturan perjalanan hormon

sehingga mengakibatkan tumbuhnya daging pada jaringan tubuh yang normal; kanker ganas.

‘cancer’: ‘a disease which is caused by irregularity in hormone production that it

causes the growth of tumors on the normal body system; malignant tumor.’ (1988:386)

From these definitions one can see that pada is the only preposition selected to refer to symptoms of health problems on humans, even though it is not the only possible one in the context (e.g. di is also an alternative), which may suggest that its selection is becoming or has become conventionalized. However, there may be two possible criticisms against this statement. The first criticism may say that even though pada is chosen in all of these definitions, we still need to distinguish between spatial and abstract cases, and see the latter case as an extension of the former. Consider, for instance, pada in (148a) and (148b) below.

(148) a. gangguan pada makhluk hidup disturbance LOC being alive ‘disturbance on human being’

b. luka pada kulit wound LOC skin ‘a cut on the skin’

One might argue that (148a) shows an abstract relation which is an extension of the positional meaning in Pada1, suggesting that health symptoms are disturbances that come to affect the human body, the notion ‘X is at place/position Y’ being extended to ‘condition affecting humans’. Meanwhile, we can argue that (148b) indicates a basic spatial locational relation, suggesting that the Trajector is visually part of the Landmark’s surface and is not detachable from it. The two examples, then, should be taken as constituting two different meanings.

This observation granted, the point remains that pada gets selected in these examples even though other prepositions, such as terhadap and di, are equally acceptable, as seen in (149) and (150) respectively.

(149) gangguan terhadap makhluk hidup ‘disturbance to human beings’

(150) luka di kulit ‘cut on the skin’

The second line of criticism would be to say that the consistent use of pada in this context is simply limited to one particular dictionary and therefore cannot be claimed as being reflective of the discourse in general. However, this criticism is not necessarily warranted as examples from other sources display a similar pattern. Consider (151) and (152), which are concerned with the same topic, but are taken from a novel.

152 Chapter 4

(151) Orang Dukuh Paruk sendiri tak tahu, banyak teman mereka person hamlet Paruk oneself NEG know many friend 3Pl.POSS

bukan mati oleh racun bongkrek, melainkan karena kekurangan NEG die by poison bongkrek but because lack.of

cairan pada tubuh mereka, akibat terlalu banyak muntah. liquid LOC body 3Pl.POSS result too much vomit ‘People in the hamlet of Paruk themselves do not know that many of their

friends did not die from the poison in bongkrek (fermented cake made of peanuts after the oil has been pressed out) but because of lack of fluid in their body as a result of too much vomitting.’ (Tohari 1988:41)

(152) Kutu air dan kudis akan kembali merajalela pada kaki dan louse water and scabies FUT return break.out LOC foot and

tangan anak-anak Dukuh Paruk. hand child-RDP hamlet Paruk ‘Tinea and scabies will spread violently on the feet and hands of the children

in the hamlet of Paruk.’ (Tohari 1988:86)

For further evidence, consider more examples below from two different expository texts; (153) is about the effects of air pollution on people, while (154) is about how to deal with children with a high IQ.

(153) Padahal kedua sinar ini banyak menyebabkan terjadi-nya whereas both light this much cause happen-DEF

penyakit kanker kulit pada manusia. illness cancer skin LOC human ‘When in fact both these lights cause a lot of skin cancer on humans.’

(W/E-MOBN)

(154) tidak dapat mendengar suara guru serta keluhan-keluhan NEG can hear voice teacher as.well.as complaint-RDP

lain yang bisa mengindikasikan ada-nya infeksi pada other REL can indicate exist-DEF infection LOC

fisik anak. body child Lit. ‘cannot hear the teacher’s voice or other complaints which can indicate

that there is an infection in the child’s body.’ ‘cannot hear the teacher’s voice or other complaints which can indicate that

the child has an infection.’ (W/E-ANAK)

As interesting added information, observe the following titles of letters taken from the medical consultation column in one of the leading Indonesian newspapers, Kompas, published between 6 May 2001–13 October 2002:

(155) Operasi pada Pasien Asma operation LOC patient asthma ‘Operation on Asthmatic Patients.’


(156) Gangguan Tidur Lebih Sering pada Perempuan disturbance sleep more often LOC woman ‘Sleep Problem More Often in Women.’

(157) Serangan Jantung pada Usia Muda attack heart LOC age young ‘Heart Attack at Young Age.’

We may wonder whether pada may simply reflect the fact that all of the above examples represent formal written language, and if that is indeed the case, then there would be no reason to assume that the context is the unifying element of this use of pada. However, this assumption is weakened by the fact that pada is not the only preposition to occur in this context. Of the 73 letter titles listed in Kompas, 20 of them contain a preposition, 15 of which are with pada, and 5 are with di. Interestingly, all the fifteen tokens of pada refer to health problems of some sort that affect people, as in (155)–(156) above, or a problem occurring at a certain stage of life (e.g. young age), as in (157), all suggesting the idea of ‘something undesirable happens to someone’. By contrast, of the five occurrences of di, three are followed by a Landmark indicating a place, as in (158) below, and two by a Landmark referring to a point or stage in life (with no implication of an undesirable event happening to a person), as in (159).

(158) Penularan penyakit di rumah spreading.of disease LOC house ‘The spread of disease at home’

(159) Mendapatkan Bayi ‘Normal’ di Setiap Kehamilan. obtain baby normal LOC every pregnancy ‘How to Have a ‘Normal’ Baby in Every Pregnancy.’

The difference in the Landmark between pada and di in these titles suggests that the occurrences of pada concern a more specific aspect of the context, namely, a condition that has an adverse effect on human health, and it seems clear from all the examples that when it is this aspect that is conveyed, the spatial/abstract distinction has little relevance.

There is also evidence that the use of pada in this context is not restricted to human health. Notice below that it is also selected to indicate some health problems in other animates such as pet fish.

(160) Ada cara lain untuk mengobati luka pada koi. exist method other for treat wound LOC koi ‘There is another method for treating the wound on the koi (type of goldfish).’

(W/P-KOI)

(161) Sebagian besar penyakit pada koi berasal dari kondisi stres. a.part large disease LOC koi originate from condition stress ‘Most diseases in the koi are caused by stress.’ (W/P-KOI)

To conclude, I note the following two points. Firstly, the use of pada to suggest undesirable health symptoms in humans, and to a lesser extent, animals, seems to be motivated by speakers’ conception about diseases/illnesses being things that disturb the wellbeing of humans and animals. It is this conception which unifies all of the instances of pada in this context. As such, it is of little importance whether the prepositional relations

154 Chapter 4

described involve spatial or abstract entities. In other words, the recurrent use of the preposition itself serves as the motivation for the development of a new, affective meaning.

Secondly, it should be mentioned that all of the examples cited are from written texts that are relatively formal in style. It is an interesting question therefore whether spoken discourse displays the same pattern. This question is not explored in this study, but from a cursory observation it can be predicted that formal spoken discourse would follow a similar pattern. It is doubtful that casual spoken discourse displays the same pattern, considering the overall distribution of pada, which shows the tendency for very low level of occurrence in casual contexts (see the distribution pattern in §4.8). The fact that pada, rather than di, is chosen for a formal register and a formal topic of discourse, seems to follow from its uses in Classical Malay, which is an essentially literary language.

4.7 Optionality of pada

It has been pointed out by a number of analysts (e.g. Lapoliwa 1992, Vimala 1984) that the use of pada is optional, particularly in temporal use.

(162) Dia akan tiba di Jakarta (pada) hari Minggu. 3Sg FUT arrive LOC Jakarta LOC day Sunday ‘S/he will arrive in Jakarta (on) Sunday.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:59)

(163) Hasil penjualan perangko (pada) bulan Desember semakin meningkat. result sale stamp LOC month December more increase ‘Stamp sales (in) December continue to increase.’ (Vimala 1984:47)

Similarly, all of the temporal examples discussed in the preceding section can occur without the preposition, as shown below:

(164) Hari Jumat sore Bik Encim datang. ‘(On) Friday evening Bik Encim came.’ (W/N-CALO)

(165) ... di negeri ini orang mulai makan malam pukul 21.00. ‘... in this country, people start having dinner (at) 9 pm.’ (W/N-UNDA)

(166) Bahkan mungkin berhenti sama sekali suatu saat tertentu jika terjadi kemacetan total.

‘It may even stop completely (at) a certain time if there is a total traffic jam.’ (W/E-MOBN)

(167) Sukab bertanya-tanya apakah masih mungkin zaman seperti sekarang seseorang bisa tidak mempunyai dosa.

‘Sukab wonders whether it is still possible (in) this day and age for someone to not have any sins.’ (W/N-WANI)

The following is a further example from a lecture. The two Trajectors, namely huru-hara ‘riot’ and TIM are anchored temporally but neither pada nor di is used to link them with their Landmarks.

(168) Nah yang kita tahu bahwa setelah ... e= huru-hara tahun PRT REL 1Pl know that after er= riot-RDP year


enampuluh enam itu, ... tahun enampuluh delapan TIM di-bentuk. sixty six that year sixty eight TIM PASS-form ‘Well, what we know is that after ... er= the riot (in) the year sixty six,

... the year (nineteen) sixty eight TIM was formed.’ (S/E-PMKI)

Temporal use is not the only environment in which pada can be omitted. Pada in constructions with emotion verbs such as cinta ‘love’ and benci ‘hate’ also allows the same omission.

(169) Aku cinta (pada) John. 1Sg love LOC John ‘I love (at) John.’

(170) Aku benci (pada) orang itu. 1Sg hate LOC person that ‘I hate (at) him/her’

However, the use of pada with some emotion terms, such as kesal ‘annoyed’ and malu ‘embarrassed’, is obligatory, as seen in (171)–(172), while in other cases, such as in (173), marah ‘angry’ its omission alters the meaning of the sentence.

(171) a. Aku kesal pada dia. ‘I am annoyed with her/him.’

b. *Aku kesal dia.

(172) a. Aku malu pada dia. ‘I am embarrassed towards her/him.’

b. *Aku malu dia.

(173) a. Aku marah pada dia. ‘I am angry with him/her.’

b. Aku marah dia. ‘I scolded him/her’26

Pada can also be omitted in phrasal verbs such as tergantung pada ‘depend on’ and terserah pada ‘it’s up to (it depends on) a person or situation’. For example:

(174) a. Itu tergantung pada mereka. ‘That depends on them.’

b. Itu tergantung mereka.

(175) a. Terserah pada mereka. ‘Up to them.’

b. Terserah mereka.

Preposition omission is also commonplace in English, as shown by O’Dowd (1998:115) through the two sets of examples below.

26 This sentence may be considered non-standard by many speakers, particularly if shown in writing (the

standard version has the applicative suffix -i on the verb: Aku marahi dia ‘I scolded her/him’). In other words, judgment on its acceptability may vary depending on whether it is presented as a written or spoken sentence.

156 Chapter 4

(176) a. If you believe in that. b. If you believe that.

(177) a. It wasn’t at all what she had planned on. b. It wasn’t at all what she had planned.

O’Dowd argues that the difference between the two constructions lies in the degree of transitivity (in the sense of Hopper and Thompson 1980, refering to the degree of such concepts as ‘affectedness’, ‘volitionality’, ‘individuation’, and so on). According to O’Dowd, preposition-less constructions reflect a higher degree of volitionality (i.e. of the relative degree of control exercised by the actor(s) over events) than verb-preposition constructions. The choice of construction is in turn determined by the language user’s subjective perception of the event.

With regard to pada, it seems that the generality does not always apply, considering that in temporal use, the preposition is totally optional, while in other uses, such as with emotion terms, it is not as consistent. And while transitivity indeed seems to be a plausible explanation for non-temporal cases, it would not be applicable to temporal use since time is not generally viewed as something that is affected by an action or directed by an agent as such. Thus the issue is far more complex than what can be attempted here. With regard to temporal use, I shall propose rather, that the optionality is accounted for by referring to the correlation between its degree of occurrence with the medium and genre in which the preposition is used. I suggest that the preposition-less (transitive) temporal construction expresses a lower degree of formality, while the prepositional one displays a higher degree of formality and is thus associated with either writing or with a discourse type dealing with abstract concepts such as expository discourse, or one that requires precision of locative expressions such as procedural discourse. This argument is supported by the fact that in the distribution pattern of pada in §4.8, the least formal of discourse types, namely spoken narrative, has zero tokens of pada, while the more formal ones (written and spoken expository and procedural) show a more comparable distribution. It seems that the more formal a discourse type is generally considered to be, the higher the frequency of pada (see further discussion below). Thus the optionality of pada in temporal use has to do with functionality in the sense that its presence or absence serves to convey a higher or lower degree of formality and precision.

4.8 Genre, medium, and the distribution of pada

Our previous discussion on the conventionalization of pada in the context of human health indicates that this preposition predominates in some areas of formal discourse. An examination of the distribution of this preposition in all genres and mediums further strengthens this observation.

To begin, there are 298 tokens of pada in the overall corpus, which is 21.06% of the total 1415 tokens of all the prepositions. Figure 4.9 shows the distribution across the three genres.


Genre Token Percentage Narrative 70 23.4% Expository 116 39% Procedural 112 37.6% TOTAL 298 100 %

Figure 4.9: The distribution of pada by genre

As we can see, the frequency in narrative discourse is lower than the other two discourse types, however, it is not apparent from these figures alone what contributes to the difference (e.g. whether the Landmark type, use type, or any other factors). A further breakdown of the distribution by medium, as shown in Figure 4.10 below, reveals that in all genres pada occurs more frequently in the written compared to spoken discourse, with the contrast being most noticeable in narrative.

Figure 4.10: The distribution of pada by genre and medium

The very low frequency in the spoken narrative may be explained by the fact that the data for this discourse type consists of casual conversations, and if it is correct that pada evokes a sense of formality, conversations are not likely to be the context where speakers would be inclined to choose this preposition for indicating both locations. The spoken data for expository and procedural discourse, on the other hand, are taken from face-to-face lectures, radio and television programs (e.g. open university lectures, cooking and lifestyle shows). Variation in content and individual style of presentation granted, the purpose and setting of the discourse are, generally speaking, not conducive to casual or colloquial speech. For example, spoken expository discourse, which has the highest number of tokens among the genres, has something of the flavour of university lectures, being relatively formal even though some more informal parts may be embedded in them.

158 Chapter 4

Figure 4.11 shows in more detail the distribution by genre and medium, as well as types of Landmark. In the ensuing paragraphs I discuss the correlation between these factors in more detail.




Landmark type Spoken (total: 1)

Written (total: 69)

Spoken (total: 42)

Written (total: 74)

Spoken (total: 12)


Spatial (Human) 1 23 2 22 1 3 Spatial (Non-human) - 8 1 15 4 71 Temporal - 28 22 7 5 9 Abstract - 10 17 30 2 17

Figure 4.11: The distribution of pada by Landmark type

If we examine Figure 4.12 below, we can see that pada is almost absent in spoken narrative, which indicates that this preposition is generally not selected for casual oral recounting of personal experiences. Written narrative, on the other hand, shows a comparatively high frequency of human and temporal Landmarks, which is compatible with the notion of narratives being about people and temporally-sequenced events. The chart below shows the distribution of Landmark types in the two mediums for this genre.

Figure 4.12: The distribution of pada in narrative discourse


The distribution of pada in expository discourse generally follows the overall pattern of preposition distribution in that the written medium has a higher number of tokens than the spoken, with the exception of temporal Landmarks in the spoken medium. This ‘discrepancy’ is due to the fact that the longest of the spoken expository texts, namely a face-to-face university lecture, contains a detailed chronological development of a literary movement in Indonesia. To this extent, the frequency is, to a degree, content-biased. However, in the corpus of the size used in this study, this is perhaps unavoidable. A much larger corpus may display a different patterning of this Landmark type.

In keeping with the general characteristics of exposition as a genre concerned mainly with abstract concepts, the number of tokens for abstract Landmarks is the highest among all Landmark types (47 tokens, compared to 24, 16, and 29 in spatial, human, and temporal Landmarks, respectively).

The distribution for the expository discourse is shown in chart form in Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.13: The distribution of pada in expository discourse

Procedural discourse also follows the general pattern of prepositions being more preferred in writing than in speech. A strikingly high occurrence of pada is found with spatial Landmarks, which may be attributed to the fact that procedural discourse is typically about about how to do things rather than about people per se (in Longacre’s term, it is not agent-oriented), and although the activities are sequenced, they are procedurally rather than temporally sequenced, which explains the relatively low frequency of temporal Landmarks in the two mediums. However, procedurals are not only about instructions involving objects, but also about how to follow a course of actions (e.g. procedure for breathing exercises to combat insomnia). The inclusion of this type of procedural in the data contributes to the frequency of abstract Landmarks being the second highest.

160 Chapter 4

Figure 4.14: The distribution of pada in procedural discourse

4.9 Conclusion

This chapter has demonstrated that, contrary to previous claims, pada cannot be distinguished from di in terms of a place/non-place contrast, dimensionality, or the possibility of human Landmarks. I have shown that pada is, in many respects, semantically similar to di, and this is evident in their inter-subsitutability in many contexts. The major semantic distinction between the spatial use of pada and di lies in the directional use with human Landmarks (‘to/toward a person’) where pada cannot be substituted for by di but is interchangeable with kepada.

There is an assumption that prepositions generally fall into two categories: those that are ‘primarily static’ and those that are ‘primarily dynamic’. The synchronic description in this chapter shows that pada has both locational and directional meanings, and these meanings can be observed in either static or dynamic contexts. I have argued that this seeming anomaly can be explained in terms of a result of borrowing from two distinct sources in Sanskrit. The directional meanings are derived from the Sanskrit noun pãda ‘foot’, and gradually developed into a preposition through a recurring use within the cultural context of deference in Classical Malay, whereas the locational meanings developed from some of the senses of the noun padá. The significance of these social and historical aspects of pada in explaining its semantic structure provides evidence against viewing the relation between locational and directional uses only in terms of elaboration.

The exploration into the history of pada also raises an interesting question about borrowing: why did Malay speakers see the need to borrow foreign terms when equivalent terms are already available? Two possible reasons can be proposed here. The first reason is that the Sanskrit terms have senses that are lacking in the existing Malay terms. For instance, padá has the abstract senses ‘position’ and ‘characteristic’ that are absent in di. Similarly, pãda ‘foot’ has the additional honorific sense initially lacking in the Malay kaki ‘leg, foot’. The second reason is that Sanskrit is perceived as a language of high culture, religion, and learning, and therefore borrowing from such a language satisfies the cultural


and intellectual aspirations of the speakers. In these respects, borrowing serves a functional purpose of fulfilling communicative needs not expressible by the existing terms.

I noted that pada shows a pattern of extension that is the opposite of that in English, in the sense that, although it is more semantically specific than di, it has more metaphorical extensions than di. I suggested that this pattern might be a result of borrowing from Sanskrit whereby some of the original senses in pãda and padá are transferred into Indonesian. Alternatively, the pattern can be accounted for in terms of a functional assignment, in which the more specific term tends to be assigned to the abstract domain, while the more general term tends to be reserved for the spatial domain. This generalization also holds with dalam, as will be shown in the next chapter.

Occurrences of pada in Indonesian indicate that pragmatic enrichment continues to play a role in semantic extension (cf. Tyler and Evans 2003:58). As demonstrated, a recurrent use of this term within the context of illnesses/diseases reflects a conception of illnesses/ diseases as being disruptions to the wellbeing of humans (and animals). This recurring context gives rise to the meaning ‘something undesirable befalls X’, which appears to be on the way to being conventionalized.

Written discourse about human health is essentially formal. The conventionalization of pada within this kind of discourse provides a good example of the predominant use of this preposition in formal contexts. The absence of pada in casual conversation supports this generalization. I have suggested that the association between pada and the formal register may be traced to both its origin in Sanskrit and its subsequent honorific use in Malay.

162

5 Denoting ‘inside’ and ‘below’ with dalam

5.1 Introduction

The word dalam, which basically means ‘inside’, can occur as a locational noun in a compound preposition, preceded by either di, ke or dari, as shown in (1), (2) and (3) respectively:

(1) Sepanjang hari ia berkurung di dalam kamar. along day 3Sg lock.oneself LOC inside room ‘All day long s/he locked her/himself up in her/his room.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:44)1

(2) Para tamu di-persilahkan masuk ke dalam ruangan. Pl guest PASS-invite go.in DIR inside room ‘The guests are invited to go into the room.’ (Vimala 1984:55)

(3) Ia keluar dari dalam kamar. 3Sg go.out SRC inside room Lit. ‘S/he went out from inside the room.’ ‘S/he came out of the room.’

When the locational noun dalam is used to refer to the inside of a room, house, or building, such as in (2), the Landmark is often left unmentioned, as in (4).

(4) Istri saya masuk ke dalam sambil merengut. wife 1Sg.POSS go.in DIR inside while sulk ‘My wife went inside, sulking.’ (W/N-CALO)

Dalam can also occur by itself as a simple preposition as in (5) and (6); in such cases, the less specific English preposition ‘in’ is often a better translation.

(5) Dia bekerja dalam ruangan yang dingin. 3Sg work LOC room REL cold ‘S/he works in a cold room.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:44)

1 To distinguish between the uses as a locational noun and as a preposition, dalam is glossed as ‘inside’

when it occurs as the former and LOC when it occurs as the latter.

Denoting ‘inside’ and ‘below’ with dalam 163

(6) Wajah-mu selalu ikut hadir dalam mimpi-mimpi indah-ku. face-2Sg always follow present LOC dream-RDP beautiful-1Sg.POSS ‘Your face always appears in my beautiful dreams.’ (Ramlan 1980:44).

Dalam can also occur as a noun meaning ‘depth’, as in (7), or as an adjective meaning ‘deep’, as in (8).2

(7) Dalam sumur itu 10 meter. depth well that 10 metre ‘The depth of that well is 10 metres.’

(8) Sumur itu sangat dalam. well that very deep ‘That well is very deep.’

This chapter is focused primarily on the independent prepositional use of dalam as exemplified in (5) and (6), and secondarily on the compound uses in (1)–(4). Section 5.2 presents a description of the spatial meanings of dalam. This is followed by a discussion of abstract and temporal extensions of these meanings, in §5.3 and §5.4 respectively. In §5.5 I discuss the issue of preposition selection by analyzing co-occurrences of dalam with di or pada, and also dalam with the compound forms di dalam ‘inside’ and ke dalam ‘into’.

The aims are as follows. First, I shall illustrate the ways in which dalam is semantically more specific than either di or pada. Its spatial uses, as shown in §5.2, are restricted to relations which primarily suggest four related spatial meanings: ‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’, ‘X is inside two-dimensional space Y’, ‘X is below the Y’s surface’, and ‘X is part of Y’s structure/composition’. The specific semantic content of dalam, in turn, accounts for its lower frequency of occurrence compared to either di or pada, particularly in casual speech, as seen in the distribution pattern to be presented in §5.6. This is because participants in a casual conversation usually share enough mutual knowledge to enable them to refer to locations with a general term such as di rather than a more specific one such as dalam.

Secondly, I will show that the specific semantic content lends itself to dalam being used primarily for abstract relations. As a result, the distinction between dalam and the other two prepositions is most evident in non-spatial meanings. Thirdly, through an examination of co-occurrences of dalam with di or pada, or dalam with its compound counterparts (namely, di dalam and ke dalam), I will further strengthen the argument put forth in the previous chapter, namely that speaker’s choice of preposition is motivated by semantic (e.g. to suggest semantic contrast) and stylistic considerations (e.g. to avoid repetition).

5.2 Spatial meanings of dalam

Of the three prepositions under study, dalam is the preposition that gets the least mention in previous studies. In fact, not all studies that discuss di and pada also examine

2 Gil (1999:423) makes an interesting proposal that in Malay, there is no grammatical distinction between

nouns and adjectives, thus the phrases dalam air ‘in water’ and air dalam ‘deep water’ belong to the same syntactic category. In Indonesian, these phrases are not semantically identical, although in both cases dalam evokes depth. The prepositional use suggests ‘partially or totally in water’ but not necessarily ‘deep in water’. For instance, in ikan dalam air ‘fish in water’, the fish may be wholly or partially submerged, but in ikan dalam air dalam ‘fish in deep water’ the fish has to be totally submerged.

164 Chapter 5

dalam. The exclusion seems to indicate that dalam is regarded as less of a preposition than either di or pada. Indeed, when we examine studies such as Li (1976), Alieva et al. (1991), and Vimala (1984), dalam is only mentioned as a locational noun in compound prepositions (e.g. di dalam ‘inside’), not as a preposition.

Other studies generally fall into two groups. On the one hand are studies that describe the meanings of dalam in terms of dimensionality, and on the other, those that make a reference to the concept ruang ‘space’. In either, spatial and abstract uses are usually accounted for in one broad definition, while temporal uses are described separately, with no relation suggested between the two.

With regard to the first mentioned, Lapoliwa (1992:44) is the most representative.3 We recall that he defines spatial and abstract meanings of di and pada in terms of one- and two-dimensional Landmarks respectively. With regard to dalam, he argues that this preposition occurs only with three-dimensional Landmarks, which he defines as ‘objects having a volume’. The following examples are given in support of his argument.

(9) Dia bekerja dalam ruangan yang dingin. 3Sg work LOC room REL cold ‘S/he works in a cold room.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:44)

(10) Informasi itu dapat di-baca dalam buku karangan Brown. information that can PASS-read LOC book composition Brown ‘That information can be read in the book written by Brown.’

(Lapoliwa 1992:44)

While it may be true that dalam cannot suggest unidimensionality (e.g. *Mereka bertemu dalam pasar ‘They met at the market’), we have already seen from the previous chapters that prepositional meanings cannot be described solely in terms of dimensionality since dimensionality is, more often than not, subjectively defined. The above examples show that, even though objectively speaking the Landmarks can be construed as three-dimensional entities, the two sentences are not symmetrical in terms of their relational meanings: (9) suggests a spatial reading, while (10) gives a more abstract reading. Moreover, while dimensionality of the Landmark may be an important feature in (9), this is not so in (10) where the focus of the Trajector-Landmark relation is on abstract containment (information is metaphorically contained within a book). There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that dalam is not restricted to three-dimensional spaces. Notice for instance in (11), that an object such as an invitation letter/card, that can independently be viewed as a two-dimensional bounded planar surface, can also occur with dalam. In this case, dalam suggests ‘inside two-dimensional space’.

(11) maka kami sengaja datang lebih lambat dari waktu yang so 1Pl purposely come more slow than time REL

tertulis dalam undangan. written LOC invitation ‘so we purposely came later than the time written on the invitation.’ (W/N-UNDA)

In effect, Lapoliwa’s notion of ‘objects having a volume’ is not much different to the notion of ruang ‘space’ suggested by the second group of studies. Ramlan (1980:43) for

3 Vimala (1984) also relies on dimensionality in describing prepositional meanings. However, her

discussion is restricted to di, pada, ke, dari, and does not deal with dalam at all.


instance, whose definition is reiterated by Chaer (1990:30), states that dalam denotes either tempat yang memiliki ruang (literally, ‘a location which has a space’) or sesuatu yang dianggap sebagai tempat yang memiliki ruang (literally, ‘something thought of as a space’). The term ruang itself may refer to unbounded space (e.g. ruang angkasa ‘outer space’, ruang dan waktu ‘space and time’) or to bounded spaces, equivalent to the English ‘room’ (e.g. ruang makan ‘dining room’, ruang pertemuan ‘meeting room’). Judging from the examples given, shown in (12)–(13), it seems that it is the latter meaning which is intended by Lapoliwa.

(12) Buku itu ku-simpan dalam lemari. book that 1Sg-store LOC cupboard ‘I keep that book in the cupboard.’

(13) Dalam tubuh yang sehat terdapat jiwa yang sehat. LOC body REL healthy be spirit REL healthy ‘In a healthy body there is a healthy mind.’

Lapoliwa’s and Ramlan’s terms are also similar to what Roolvink (1948:106) calls omvang, inhoud of volume ‘extent or bulk, capacity, or volume’, in the sense that all refer to the inside region of enclosed spaces such as rooms, cupboards, boxes, buses, trains, or partially enclosed spaces such as coffee cups and baskets.

As with Lapoliwa’s account, the major problems with Ramlan’s and Chaer’s accounts is that, first, the notion ruang can prove counterintuitive for many spatial cases (e.g. (11)); and secondly, there is no explanation as to how this notion extends to non-spatial cases. Even assuming that non-spatial cases are extensions of spatial cases, it would be odd to treat such examples as (14) as being ‘room-like’, for here dalam is used to suggest a bounded Path, activities such as travelling being thought of in linear terms as an event that occurs over a specified time. An example such as (14) suggests a linearization of time, and in this chapter, they are treated as an extension of the spatial notion ‘inside two-dimensional space’.

(14) Dalam perjalanan ke Australia kami singgah di Denpasar. LOC trip DIR Australia 1Pl transit LOC Denpasar ‘On the way to Australia we transited in Denpasar.’ (Chaer 1990:30)

In spite of the shortcomings, the claim that dalam denotes three-dimensional Landmarks is not totally baseless. When we examine the occurrences of this preposition in the corpus, as shown in Figure 5.1, we can see that the predominant use of dalam is indeed with bounded three-dimensional Landmarks.

Narrative 2 - - 1 Expository 2 1 - 6 Procedural 25 8 5 3

Figure 5.1: Frequency of dalam by Landmark type

166 Chapter 5

However, it is also obvious from the figure that, although three-dimensional objects are predominant, dalam also occurs with other Landmark types, e.g. planar surfaces (two-dimensional spaces) and liquid.

Based on the examination of the data, four spatial meanings are proposed for dalam.4 These meanings are discussed in turn below.

5.2.1 Inside three-dimensional spaces

The meaning of Dalam1 is similar to the meaning suggested in previous studies, namely, that the Trajector is inside the region of an object construed as three-dimensional, or ruang. However, the explication here differs from ruang in that, unlike the concept ruang, which implies an enclosure (as is implicit in Ramlan’s and Chaer’s accounts), it is of no crucial importance here whether the space is enclosed, as in (15), or partially bounded, as in (16).

(15) a. Bagi kaum ibu yang ingin memasak jamur merang hasil for Pl mother REL want cook mushroom straw result

panen sendiri, dapat menanam-nya dalam dapur. harvest self can grow-3Sg LOC kitchen ‘For those women who want to cook straw mushrooms from their own

harvest, (you) can grow the mushrooms in the kitchen.’ (W/P-JAMU)

b. Bagi kaum ibu yang ingin memasak jamur merang hasil panen sendiri, dapat menanamnya di dapur.

c. *Bagi kaum ibu yang ingin memasak jamur merang hasil panen sendiri, dapat menanamnya pada dapur.

(16) a. Taruh dalam gelas panjang. put LOC glass long ‘Put (the folded serviette) in a tall glass.’ (W/P-SERB)

b. Taruh di gelas panjang.

c. ??Taruh pada gelas panjang.

When the space is thought of as an enclosure, di is acceptable, as in (15b) and (16b), showing that this meaning falls within its general semantic range. However, dalam and di are different in that ‘inside’ constitutes a conventionalized meaning with dalam, whereas with di, it is only implicated (see Chapter 3). Pada is not acceptable in either of these examples as ‘inside’ is not part of its meanings. Its occurrence in (16c) makes sense only if it refers to the rim of the glass (that the folded serviette is put on top of the glass, covering the rim), or, possibly, to the outer surface of the glass (e.g. the serviette is attached to its outer surface).

4 The first three of these meanings are similar to the meanings of the Proto-Malayo Polynesian (PMP) term

*dalem reconstructed by Blust (1997). In his article Blust argues that the source of conceptual focus of the PMP term is ‘within planar surfaces (of the sea or earth)’, and not three-dimensional spaces. The detail of the argument is not entered into here given that Blust’s hypothesis is based on several Austronesian languages (e.g. Malay and Tagalog) but the Indonesian dalam is not touched upon at all (also see Blust 1989).


The human body construed as an enclosure also sanctions the use of dalam, as shown in (17). As with the previous examples, di is an acceptable alternative here, suggesting either ‘inside’ or ‘on’ reading, as in (17b). Pada is also an alternative, not so much because it expresses containment, but rather because it reflects a conventional preposition selection within the discourse about illnesses/diseases on humans and animals, as discussed in Chapter 4.

(17) a. Semua benjolan yang tumbuh secara liar dalam tubuh all lump REL grow in.manner.of wild LOC body

manusia di-sebut tumor. human PASS-call tumor ‘All lumps which grow wild in the human body are called tumors.’

(Ramlan 1980:43) +> inside

b. Semua benjolan yang tumbuh secara liar di tubuh manusia disebut tumor. +> inside or on the body

c. Semua benjolan yang tumbuh secara liar pada tubuh manusia disebut tumor. +> inside, affecting health

When the Landmark is a three-dimensional object but the relevant part is its flat surface functioning as a container, such as a plate, the Trajector’s position can be described with dalam as well as pada, as seen in (18a) and (18c) respectively. In this case, dalam refers to the inner part of the bounded Landmark (‘within the Landmark’s containing part’), whereas pada suggests the locational contact relation between the Trajector and the planar Landmark. This kind of context motivates the shift of meaning from Dalam1 to Dalam2, from the notion ‘inside a three-dimensional object’ to the notion ‘within the planar part of a three-dimensional object’. Di is acceptable here too, as shown in (18b), because its general semantic content allows both notions to be implicated from the context.

(18) a. Letakkan dalam piring buah, pasti cantik memikat. put LOC plate fruit certainly pretty attractive ‘Put (the creatively-folded banana leaves) in a fruit platter, (it will) certainly

look very attractive.’ +> within the inside rim of the plate (W/P-DAUN)

b. Letakkan di piring buah, pasti cantik memikat.

c. Letakkan pada piring buah, pasti cantik memikat.

The fact that ‘inside’ is conventionalized in dalam and only implicated in di can be shown in nested constructions with multiple Landmarks, as in (19)–(20), where only one of the occurrences of dalam is interchangeable with di. We can see from these examples that, when the relation emphasizes the Landmark’s total enclosure and the Trajector as being inside that enclosure, the possibility of intersubstitutability with di diminishes. As seen in (19b) and (20b), only dalam is acceptable for depicting the image of meat being completely enclosed inside a plastic bag, complete enclosure being indicated by the verb phrase bungkus rapat ‘tightly wrap’. Pada is not acceptable in this context at all, as shown in (19c) and (20c).

(19) a. Setelah itu bungkus rapat dalam plastik dan masukkan after that wrap tightly LOC plastic and put.inside

168 Chapter 5

dalam freezer. LOC freezer ‘After that, tightly-wrap it (the meat) in a plastic bag and put it in the freezer.’

(W/P-KULKAS)

b. Setelah itu bungkus rapat *di plastik dan masukkan di freezer.

c. Setelah itu bungkus rapat *pada plastik dan masukkan *pada freezer.

(20) a. Sisa roti tawar dapat anda simpan dalam kulkas dengan leftover bread bland can 2Sg/Pl store LOC fridge with

membungkus rapat-rapat dalam plastik. wrap tightly-RDP LOC plastic ‘You can store leftover bread in the fridge by putting it in a closely-tied

plastic bag.’ (W/P-KULKAS)

b. Sisa roti tawar dapat anda simpan di kulkas dengan membungkus rapat-rapat *di plastik.

c. Sisa roti tawar dapat anda simpan *pada kulkas dengan membungkus rapat-rapat *pada plastik.

To summarize, Dalam1, as explicated below, has two relational components: a) the Landmark is construed as a three-dimensional space, and b) the Trajector is either wholly or partially inside it. In this respect, dalam is similar to the ‘inside’ sense of English ‘in’ as ‘apples in a bowl’, ‘dog in the basket’, ‘flowers in a vase’, and so on.

Dalam1: X is inside three-dimensional space Y

5.2.2 Inside two-dimensional spaces

The second meaning of dalam is focused on the position of the Trajector inside (or ‘within’) a bounded, planar Landmark, as already alluded to in (18). As with Dalam1, Dalam2 also means ‘inside’, but unlike Dalam1 which is associated with three-dimensional spaces that are either wholly or partially bounded, Dalam2 is associated with two-dimensional, bounded Landmarks with the Trajector being wholly inside its boundaries.

An example of this meaning is shown in (21a). Here both di and pada are acceptable alternatives, as in (21b) and (21c) respectively, but they merely suggest that the Trajector is positioned relative to its Landmark and do not focus on the Landmark’s boundedness.

(21) a. Perhatikan apakah dalam kemasan-nya terdapat nomor notice whether LOC packaging-1SG.POSS be.found number

registrasi. registration ‘See whether on its packaging there is a registration number.’ (W/P-JAMU)

b. Perhatikan apakah di kemasannya terdapat nomer registrasi.

c. Perhatikan apakah pada kemasannya terdapat nomer registrasi.

A further illustration is given in (22a). Here dalam refers to the inside area of the geometrical shape ‘circle’, and not to the circular line. Di does not specify which of these two readings is intended. Thus in (22b), the teacher may be inside or on the circle (sitting


with the children). Pada is not acceptable at all, as shown in (22c). The only interpretation it could possibly have here is that the teacher came in and sat on the children who are sitting on a circle, which, under normal circumstances, is nonsensical. In this particular context, dalam is similar to the use of Dutch and English ‘in’ as in Teken een lijn in die cirkel ‘Draw a line in that circle’ (from Cuyckens 1993:38).

(22) a. Anak-anak duduk membentuk lingkaran, kemudian guru masuk child-RDP sit form circle then teacher enter

dan duduk dalam lingkaran itu. and sit LOC circle that ‘The children sat forming a circle, then the teacher entered and sat inside

that circle.’

b. Anak-anak duduk membentuk lingkaran, kemudian guru masuk dan duduk di lingkaran itu.

c. *Anak-anak duduk membentuk lingkaran, kemudian guru masuk dan duduk pada lingkaran itu.

The idea of being wholly inside a bounded Landmark suggested by this context also gives rise to the metaphorical expression berada dalam lingkaran setan ‘to be inside the devil’s circle’, referring to a person being trapped in an undesirable situation, comparable to English ‘in’ in the expression ‘in a vicious circle’. Neither di nor pada can substitute for dalam in this case.

In some contexts, dalam can also be interpreted in terms of a part-whole relation as in Dalam4 (‘X is part of Y’s structure/composition’), e.g. the relation between the data and the table in (23a). Here, both di and pada are acceptable alternatives, as shown in (23b) and (23c) respectively, but only dalam emphasizes the boundedness of the Landmark. Di simply suggests that the data is located with reference to the table. Pada is acceptable here because it also has a part-whole meaning (Pada2 ‘X is part of Y’, see previous chapter). However, unlike the part-whole meaning of dalam, pada is not restricted to the ‘inside’ relations such as in (23c). For example, it can suggest that the part is usually attached to the whole, e.g. roda pada mobil ‘wheel on the car’, or is an inalienable part of the whole, e.g. sayap pada burung ‘feathers on the bird’. Dalam cannot express any of these relations.

(23) a. Lihat-lah data dalam tabel ini. see-EMP data LOC table this ‘Look at the data in this table.’

b. Lihatlah data di tabel ini.

c. Lihatlah data pada tabel ini.

The meaning ‘inside two-dimensional space’ in Dalam2 can be shown in a context such as (24) where dalam is contrasted with di. Di, as in (24a), can be interpreted as ‘anywhere in the field, either inside or outside the line’. However, dalam only suggests ‘inside’, as shown in (24b).

(24) a. Pemain dan wasit harus selalu berada di lapangan. player and umpire must always be LOC field ‘Players must always be in the field.’

170 Chapter 5

b. Pemain harus selalu berada dalam lapangan, sedangkan wasit player must always be LOC field whereas umpire

harus di lapangan, tapi tidak harus dalam lapangan. must LOC field but NEG must LOC field ‘Players must always be inside the field, whereas the umpire has to be in the

field but does not have to be inside the field.’

To demonstrate further that dalam requires not only that the Landmark has to be construed as a bounded two-dimensional space, but also that the Trajector has to be inside it, consider (25a) and (26a). Here dalam is not acceptable even though both Landmarks are bounded and bidimensionally construed. The reason is that the planar surfaces of objects such as tables and beds are usually thought of in terms of their function as the ‘bearer’ of the objects put on them, rather than their boundedness. In this case, di is the only alternative, as shown in (25b) and (26b), since di is the default preposition for expressing the functional interaction between objects or between people and objects. Pada is not acceptable either, as shown in (25c) and (26c), since it is not generally chosen as a default preposition for functionally construed relations, except in part-whole cases, as already pointed out in the previous chapter.

(25) a. *Taruh gelas itu dalam meja. put glass that LOC table ‘Put the glass on the table.’

b. Taruh gelas itu di meja.

c. *Taruh gelas itu pada meja.

(26) a. *Letakkan bantal itu dalam tempat tidur. put pillow that LOC place sleep ‘Put the pillow on the bed.’

b. Letakkan bantal itu di tempat tidur.

c. *Letakkan bantal itu pada tempat tidur.

In summary, Dalam2, as explicated below, has two components: (a) the Landmark is construed as a bounded two-dimensional space, and (b) the Trajector is wholly inside that space.

Dalam2: ‘X is inside two-dimensional space Y’

5.2.3 Below the surface of the Landmark

This meaning of dalam, explicated as Dalam3 (‘X is below Y’s surface’), is close to its uses as a noun and adjective in (7) and (8) respectively. Like the noun and adjective, the prepositional use is associated with Landmarks construed as having a surface and depth, e.g. water (and other liquid substances), the ground (cf. Blust 1997), or those that are inherently thought of in terms of depth, e.g. a hole, a well. This is similar to one of the ‘under and inside’ interpretations of di, as in, for example, di tanah ‘in the ground’, di air ‘in the water’.

Dalam3 is similar to Dalam1 (‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’) in terms of the Landmark being construed as three-dimensional. However, it is distinct from it in that


Dalam3 focuses on the Landmark’s vertical axis, i.e. the Trajector is below its surface or rim, rather than inside its enclosure. It is distinct from Dalam2 in that the boundedness of the Landmark is not an important feature here.

To show that Dalam3 constitutes a distinct meaning, a comparison can again be made with di. When occuring with Landmarks such as the ground or water, di can have two possible interpretations, namely, the surface of the Landmark or the area below that surface. Dalam, on the other hand, can only mean the latter (unless it is the boundedness of the surface that is focused, which is the case of Dalam2). Consider the following dictionary definition of cacing ‘worm’ from a monolingual dictionary (this example is also given in Chapter 3). Dalam in relation to the Landmarks air ‘water’ and tanah ‘ground’ can only suggest that the Trajector is below the Landmark’s surface.

(27) Cacing: binatang yang tubuh-nya bulat atau pipih panjang worm animal REL body-3Sg.POSS round or flat long

dan tidak beranggota (ada yang hidup dalam air, tanah, and NEG have.part exist REL live LOC water ground

perut manusia, atau binatang). stomach human or animal ‘Worm: an animal whose body is round or flat and long and does not have

parts (some live in the water, the ground, human stomach or animal stomach).’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:144)

The contrast between di and dalam is shown in (28). Here the interpretation of di as ‘on the Landmark’s surface’ can be reinforced by negating the ‘under and inside’ interpretation, using dalam.

(28) Ada cacing di tanah, tapi bukan dalam tanah. ‘There is a worm on the ground, but not ‘under and inside’ the ground.’

Pada is also acceptable for conveying that the Trajector is on the surface of the Landmark. However, it has to be followed by the noun permukaan ‘surface’, which expresses explicitly which part of the Landmark is intended, as in (29). It cannot occur without it, as shown in (29b), because ‘under and inside’ does not enter into its semantic range. Di can also be followed by this noun. However, its presence is not obligatory. Whereas with pada, it is not an option. In the context of (29a), pada also indicates a marked situation. Because worms are generally associated with the region below the ground (or water), while pada here implies that, for some odd reason, many worms come out of from under the ground.

(29) a. Ada banyak cacing pada permukaan tanah. ‘There are many worms on the ground.’

b. *Ada banyak cacing pada tanah. ‘There are many worms under and inside the ground.’

A variant of the use is seen in (30). Here, dalam occurs with the passive verb direndam ‘be soaked’, which reinforces the idea of the Trajector being under the Landmark’s surface. Through the I-Principle (‘Unmarked, minimal expressions warrant maximal interpretations to the stereotypical extensions’), dalam can be interpreted as ‘submerged in the liquid Landmark’. Di, but not pada, is an acceptable alternative, as in (30b) and (30c) respectively, because this reading can be inferred from di.

172 Chapter 5

(30) a. Ikat jerami tersebut kemudian di-rendam dalam air tie stubbles aforementioned then PASS-soak LOC water

bersih selama 2–3 jam sehingga basah merata. clean for 2–3 hour until wet evenly ‘Bundle the stubbles up then soak in clean water for 2–3 hours until

thoroughly wet.’ +> submerged (W/P-JAMU)

b. Ikat jerami tersebut kemudian direndam di air bersih selama 2–3 jam sehingga basah merata.

c. *Ikat jerami tersebut kemudian direndam pada air bersih selama 2–3 jam sehingga basah merata.

A similar example is given in (31). Generally speaking, verbs such as menggoreng ‘fry’ do not suggest submersion. For example, frying an egg or rice (menggoreng telur ‘fry an egg’, menggoreng nasi ‘fry rice’) does not require a large amount of oil. However, the occurrence of this verb with dalam indicates that it is deep frying which is intended, although it is not mandatory that the Trajector be fully submerged. Other ways of frying, such as stirfrying or sautéing are expressed in Indonesian by using the verb tumis, as in (32), which cannot combine with dalam (unless the Landmark is a bounded object and the relation highlights containment, for example tumis dalam wajan ‘stirfry in a wok’; also see example (34) below). Di, but not pada, is an acceptable substitute here.

(31) a. Menggoreng ... dalam minyak yang banyak. fry LOC oil REL much ‘Frying ... in a lot of oil.’ +> submerge (S/P-AROM)

b. Menggoreng ... di minyak yang banyak.

c. *Menggoreng ... pada minyak yang banyak

(32) Panaskan minyak, tumis bawang putih sampai bau-nya harum heat oil saute onion white until smell-3Sg fragrant

kemudian masukkan udang. then put.in shrimp ‘Heat the oil, sauté the garlic until fragrant, then put in the shrimps.’

(Marahimin and Djalil 1983:45)

A similar example is shown in (33a), where dalam indicates that what is intended by the word saus ‘sauce’ is not a dipping sauce, but rather a ‘soup-like’ sauce. As with (31), the Trajector may br either partially or wholly submerged. Di can also occur, as in (33b), while pada cannot, as shown in (33c), for the same reason as with the previous examples.

(33) a. Masukkan dalam saus areh, hidangkan. put LOC sauce areh serve ‘Put (the dumplings) in the areh sauce, serve.’ +> submerge (W/P-PUTR)

b. Masukkan di saus areh, hidangkan.

c. *Masukkan pada saus areh, hidangkan.


One might argue that the ‘under and inside’ meaning is contextually induced. That is, rather than dalam, it is actually the transitive verb masukkan ‘put in(side)’, which typically refers to the action of putting something inside some sort of enclosure, that provides the clue to the interpretation. However, this argument is weakened by the fact that this verb does not always suggest submersion. For instance, in (34) it simply means ‘put in a container’ (in this case, the wok).

(34) Potong-potong daging-nya, lalu masukkan dalam wajan. cut-RDP meat-DEF then put.in LOC wok ‘Cut up the meat, then put in the wok.’

If we replace masukkan with another verb such as taruh ‘put’ which does not imply any particular Landmark shape, dalam retains the same meaning, as shown in (35).

(35) Taruh dalam saus areh, hidangkan. ‘Put in the areh sauce, serve.’

Thus the ‘inside’ meaning of masukkan is compatible with and reinforces the notion of submersion in dalam, but does not determine the meaning of dalam.

Example (36) provides a further illustration of the co-occurrence of dalam with a verb that reinforces the meaning ‘below the Landmark’s surface’. As with masukkan ‘put in(side)’ in (34), the verb rebus ‘boil’ here does not specify that the Trajector has to be fully submerged. Cases showing a mutual reinforcement between a preposition and a verb of similar semantic content such as these have also been noted in the previous chapters. As with the previous examples, di, but not pada, is acceptable as a substitute.

(36) a. Rebus bulatan tersebut dalam air mendidih hingga matang boil ball aforementioned LOC water boiling until cooked

dan terapung, tiriskan. and float drain ‘Boil the dumplings in boiling water until cooked and floating (to the surface),

drain.’ +> submerged (W/P-PUTR)

b. Rebus bulatan tersebut di air mendidih hingga matang dan terapung, tiriskan.

c. *Rebus bulatan tersebut pada air mendidih hingga matang dan terapung, tiriskan.

In summary, Dalam3, as explicated below, represents cases where the focus of the prepositional relation is on the Trajector being wholly or partially below the surface of the Landmark and enclosed by its volume (‘under and inside’). This meaning is similar to one of the interpretations of di, which enables dalam to be substituted for by it. Pada is not acceptable option in this case, because this meaning does not enter into its semantic range of contextual possibilities.

Dalam3: X is below Y’s surface

5.2.4 Part-whole relations

The fourth spatial meaning of dalam represents part-whole relations that seem to fall in between spatial and abstract cases. For example, while (37a) may be thought of in terms of

174 Chapter 5

a spatial relation, (38a) and (39a) do not readily lend themselves to the same categorization. This is probably because the Trajector is not, under general circumstances, perceptually accessible to an observer. However, all of these examples share one common feature, namely, that the Trajector is ‘inside’ the whole and is part of the Landmark’s composition.

(37) a. Tidak ada gist dalam roti ini, sedangkan di roti itu ada. NEG exist yeast LOC bread this whereas LOC bread that exist ‘There is no yeast in this bread, whereas in that bread, there is.’

b. Tidak ada gist di roti ini, sedangkan di roti itu ada.

c. ??Tidak ada gist pada roti ini, sedangkan pada roti itu ada.

(38) a. Zat besi membantu pembentukan sel dalam darah. substance iron help formation cell LOC blood ‘Iron helps in the formation of cells in the blood’

b. Zat besi membantu pembentukan sel di darah.

c. Zat besi membantu pembentukan sel pada darah.

(39) a. dalam setiap 100 gram tomat dan pasta tomat (bahan baku LOC every 100 gram tomato and paste tomato ingredient basic

saus tomat) terkandung masing-masing 5,4-5,7 mg dan sauce tomato be-contained each-RDP 5.4-5.7 mg and

58,5-59,5 mg likopen. 58.5-59.5 mg lycopene ‘in every 100 gram tomatoes and tomato paste (the basic ingredient in tomato

sauce) contains 5.4-5.7 mg and 58.5-59.5 of lycopene respectively.’ (W/E-TOMAT)

b. di setiap 100 gram tomat dan pasta tomat (bahan baku saus tomat) terkandung masing-masing 5,4-5,7 mg dan 58,5-59,5 mg likopen.

c. pada setiap 100 gram tomat dan pasta tomat (bahan baku saus tomat) terkandung masing-masing 5,4-5,7 mg dan 58,5-59,5 mg likopen.

The ‘inside’ sense in this meaning (Dalam4) is similar to the previous three meanings of dalam. However, Dalam4 is distinct from the other meanings in the following respects. Unlike Dalam1 (‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’), there is no requirement for the Landmark of Dalam4 to be three-dimensional (e.g. as illustrated earlier in (23a)). Similarly, it is distinct from Dalam2 (‘X is inside two-dimensional space Y’) in that there is no requirement for the Trajector to be inside the boundaries of two-dimensional Landmarks. It is also distinct from Dalam3 (‘X is below Y’s surface’) in that the relation is not focused on the vertical axis or on its volume (e.g. dalam air ‘under and inside the water’).

The distinct meaning of Dalam4 can be shown in contexts where two meanings of dalam cannot be conjoined without a zeugmatic effect. Consider for instance, gula dalam toples ‘sugar in a jar’, which represents Dalam1, and gula dalam roti ‘sugar in bread’ (as part of bread ingredients), which represents Dalam4. When these two senses of of dalam are conjoined, the resulting sentence is odd, e.g. *Ada gula dalam toples dan roti ‘There is


sugar in the jar and the bread’. In the case of the bread, it can only mean that there is sugar inside the bread (i.e. as a filling). Alternatively, the following sentence allows a crossed-interpretation of dalam: Saya suka gula dalam roti tapi tidak dalam roti ‘I like sugar in bread (as part of the ingredients, i.e. Dalam4), but not inside the bread (as a filling, i.e. Dalam1).’5

In the previous chapter it was pointed out that pada has a part-whole meaning (Pada3), the part being defined in terms of three characteristics: (a) the part has an autonomy and non-arbitrary boundaries, (b) its boundaries are delimited by a discontinuity of some sort, and (c) the part has a definite function relative to the whole. These characteristics are observed for example in roda pada mobil ‘wheel on a car’, and in lesung pipit pada pipi ‘dimple on the cheek’. The part-whole meaning of dalam does not always observe all of these characteristics. For example, the functional characteristic in (c) is present in (37a) (i.e. yeast is for making bread rise), but not in (38a) or (39a). In these latter two examples, the relation is purely ‘compositional’, that is, the part makes up the structure or composition of the whole. In addition, in none of these three examples can the Trajector be readily delimited or detached from the whole.

Di is acceptable in the above examples because the ‘inside’ reading can be implicated from the context. Pada, on the other hand, does not generate the same implication, which explains why it is not always acceptable as a substitute, particularly in cases that are considered spatial, as in (37c). In cases that are more abstract, such as (38c) and (39c), it is acceptable and the requirement for the part to be clearly delimited is laxed. The acceptability of pada in these abstract cases accord with its general pattern of use, which favours abstract relations, as has already been noted in the previous chapter. The example in (40) further supports this observation. Here the relation between the ground spices and its liquid is clearly spatial. Substituting dalam with pada, as in (40c) results in an awkward sentence.

(40) a. ... arti-nya adalah air yang ada dalam … bumbu meaning-DEF be water REL exist LOC ground.spice

... habis dan kering. finish and dry ‘... meaning that the liquid that is in the ground spices has gone (absorbed)

and dried.’ (S/P-AROM)

b. artinya adalah air yang ada di bumbu habis dan kering.

c. ??artinya adalah air yang ada pada bumbu habis dan kering.

A variant of the part-whole meaning of dalam is given in (41a)–(42a). Here, the relation can also be interpreted as containment or inclusion. Pada is not acceptable in this context either, as shown in (41c)–(42c).

5 One should bear in mind that sentences used for testing distinct meanings may not always sound natural.

In this particular case, the sentence makes better sense when spoken and accompanied by gesture, i.e. pointing to the different parts of the bread.

176 Chapter 5

(41) a. Cerita dalam buku tersebut mencerminkan dunia anak story LOC book aforementioned reflect world child

yang mulai sadar akan diri sendiri. REL begin conscious of self oneself ‘The story in that book reflects a world where children are beginning

to be aware of themselves.’ (Ramlan 1980:44)

b. Cerita di buku tersebut mencerminkan dunia anak yang mulai sadar akan diri sendiri.

c. *Cerita pada buku tersebut mencerminkan dunia anak yang mulai sadar akan diri sendiri.

(42) a. Cerita ini sudah di-muat dalam majalah. story this already PASS-publish LOC magazine ‘This story/article has already been published (lit. ‘contained’) in a

magazine. (Badan Penyusun Kamus 1988:182)

b. Cerita ini sudah dimuat di majalah.

c. *Cerita ini sudah dimuat pada majalah.

The principal difference between dalam and pada in part-whole relations, then, is that dalam is characterized by the Trajector being ‘inside’ and part of the structure/composition of the whole, as in (37)–(40), or contained by or included in the Landmark, as in (41)–(42). This ‘inside’ feature of the meaning does not enter into the semantic range or interpretations of pada. Nonetheless, pada can substitute for dalam in cases such as in (38c)–(39c) to indicate that the relations are construed as being abstract. The meaning of Dalam4 is specified below.

Dalam4: ‘X is part of Y’s structure/composition’

To conclude, in all of the examples shown above, dalam can be substituted for by di, while it is only in some contexts that pada is an acceptable substitute. These are the contexts where the relation highlights the existence of boundaries or depth, which are inferable from the contexts of di but not pada. The fact that dalam can be substituted for by di in all of the cases shown above suggests that there is a superordinate:hyponymic relationship between di and dalam. That is, the conventional meanings of dalam are similar to some of the inferences that can be generated by di. The unacceptability of pada is observed in relations suggesting the meanings ‘inside a three-dimensional space’ (as in Dalam1) or ‘below the surface’ (as in Dalam3). When the Landmark is construed as two-dimensional, pada can occur if the focus of the relation is not on the boundaries of the Landmark. Pada is similar to dalam in some part-whole cases in which the relation is abstract.

A summary of the four spatial meanings of dalam and their contextual possibilities are given in Figure 5.2. The arrows indicate the direction of extension, postulated at the synchronic level only.


Figure 5.2: Spatial meanings of dalam and their contextual possibilities

Figure 5.3 presents the relation between the spatial uses of dalam, di, and pada. The dotted line indicates the scope of pragmatically generated interpretations in di and pada, while the circles with continuous lines show the meanings in dalam.

Figure 5.3: The relations between the spatial meanings of dalam and the inferences for di and pada

Dalam1: X is inside 3-DIM space Y

- mushroom growing in kitchen (15) - serviette in tall glass (16) - tumor in human body (17) - banana leaves in platter (18) - food in plastic bag (19, 20)


- registration no. in medicine packaging (23) - person sitting inside a circle (22) - players in the field (24b) - data in table (23)

Dalam3: X is below Y’s surface - worm in water/ground (27) - stubbles soaked in water (29) - food fried in oil (31) - dumplings in sauce/water (33, 36)

Dalam4: X is part of Y’s structure/composition

- yeast in bread (37) - cells in blood (38) - lycopene in tomatoes (39) - story in book/magazine (41, 42) - data in table (23) - liquid in ground spices (41)

Di


Dalam3: X is below Y’s

surface

Dalam2: X is inside two-DIM space Y

Dalam4: X is part of Y’s

structure/ composition

Pada

178 Chapter 5

5.2.5 Dalam with human Landmarks

We recall from the previous two chapters that one of the distinctions between di and pada, as claimed by previous studies, concerns occurrences with human Landmarks. In existing descriptions of dalam, the possibility of a human Landmark is hardly mentioned. The only brief mention is found in Datang (1989:77), however, the only example given here for the supposed human Landmark is a pronoun for God.

(43) Dalam Dia kita bersaudara. LOC 3Sg 1Pl be.related.by.blood ‘In Him we are family.’ (Datang 1989:77)

Even though the above example may not be representative of a human Landmark, since God, as most people would agree, is an abstract entity (though conceived of as a concrete entity in the above example), it is representative of the use of dalam with this Landmark type, in the sense that dalam suggests the abstract representation of humans such as the self (e.g. dalam diri seseorang ‘in someone’ (literally, ‘within/inside one’s self’), or personified abstract entities such as God. However, there are no examples of this use in the corpus of this study.

5.3 Abstract meanings

In previous studies, extended uses of dalam are accounted for either in terms of sesuatu yang dianggap sebagai tempat yang memiliki ruang ‘something thought of as having space’ (Ramlan 1980:43) or denoting keadaan, perbuatan, waktu dsb. ‘situation, action, time etc.’ (Slametmuljana 1957:179). Even though these accounts are basically correct in that some non-spatial Landmarks can indeed be thought of as abstract space, and also that it is true they may refer to a situation, action, or time, the statements say very little about the extended uses themselves. That is, they are not explicit about the relations between the spatial and non-spatial uses (in the sense of which spatial notions extend to which abstract or temporal use). In the following it is shown that while Dalam1, referring to the inside region of a three-dimensional space, is the most important source of extension, the other three meanings also all take part in extensions into the abstract domain.

5.3.1 Extensions of ‘inside three-dimensional spaces’

Dalam1 has three extensions, all of which suggest the notion of being inside an abstract concept. In the first extension, the notion ‘inside a three-dimensional space’ extends to ‘being in a state’.

This extension is exemplified by terms referring to either a general state of affairs, such as keadaan ‘situation, condition’ in (44a) and (45a), or a psychological state, such as the stative verb termenung ‘be in a pondering/reflective/pensive state’, as in (46a). Neither di nor pada can substitute for dalam in any of these examples, as shown in (44b)-(46b) and (44c)-(46c) respectively.

(44) a. Dalam keadaan jang demikian, sukar-lah orang membedakan LOC situation REL like.that difficult-EMP person distinguish


mana jang benar mana yang salah. which REL right which REL wrong ‘In a situation like that, it is difficult to distinguish between what’s right

and what’s wrong.’ (Slametmuljana 1957:179)

b. *Di keadaan yang demikian, sukarlah orang membedakan mana yang benar mana yang salah.

c. *Pada keadaan yang demikian, sukarlah orang membedakan mana yang benar mana yang salah.

(45) a. Pastikan pula bahwa semua kondisi mobil dalam keadaan baik. ensure also that all condition car LOC condition good ‘Ensure also that the car is in overall good condition.’ (W/P-TIPS)

b. *Pastikan pula bahwa semua kondisi mobil di keadaan baik.

c. *Pastikan pula bahwa semua kondisi mobil pada keadaan baik.

(46) a. Dalam termenung-menung itu tiba-tiba teringat-lah ia LOC ponder-RDP that suddenly-RDP remember-EMP 3Sg

akan pesan orang tua-nya. of advice person old-3Sg.POSS ‘In the state of pondering s/he suddenly remembered his/her parents’ advice.’

(Slametmuljana 1957:179)

b. *Di termenung-menung itu tiba-tiba teringatlah ia akan pesan orang tuanya.

c. *Pada termenung-menung itu tiba-tiba teringatlah ia akan pesan orang tuanya.

An interesting point here is that the substitutability between the di and dalam in the spatial meaning of Dalam1 (‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’) no longer pertains in the case of this extension. This is also true of the other two extensions of Dalam1, as discussed below.

The first extension of Dalam1 is specified as follows.

Dalam5: X is in state Y

The second extension of Dalam1 is seen in contexts about groupings or categories, which extends the spatial notion of ‘inside three-dimensional space’ to ‘within a grouping/category’, as in (47) and (48). Division into categories can therefore be thought of as an entry into abstract bounded regions. As with the previous examples, dalam cannot be substituted for by di or pada, however, it can be replaced by menjadi ‘become, into’, as in (47d) and (48d).

(47) a. Anak-anak itu di-bagi dalam dua kelompok. child-RDP that PASS-divide LOC two group ‘The children are divided into two groups.’ (Ramlan 1980:45)

b. *Anak-anak itu dibagi di dua kelompok.

c. *Anak-anak itu dibagi pada dua kelompok.

d. Anak-anak itu dibagi menjadi dua kelompok.

180 Chapter 5

(48) a. Mineral-mineral itu terbagi dalam dua kategori: cadangan dan sumber. mineral that divided into two category reserve and source ‘The minerals can be classified into two categories: reserve and source.’

(Ramlan 1980:45)

b. *Mineral-mineral itu terbagi di dua kategori: cadangan dan sumber.

c. *Mineral-mineral itu terbagi pada dua kategori: cadangan dan sumber.

d. Mineral-mineral itu terbagi menjadi dua kategori: cadangan dan sumber.

A variant of this extension is given in (49). Here a change of shape can be metaphorically understood as a change of state (cf. Goldberg 1995:83). And if states are viewed as abstract bounded regions, then change of state is a metaphorical entry into that region.

(49) a. Ikat jerami kering dalam satu bundel. tie dried.rice.stalk dry LOC one bundle ‘Tie up the dried rice stalks into one bundle.’ (W/P-JAMU)

b. *Ikat jerami di satu bundel.

c. *Ikat jerami pada satu bundel.

d. Ikat jerami menjadi satu bundel.

In this dynamic relation, dalam is often used interchangeably with ke dalam ‘into’, as seen below in (50). Ke can be omitted here without affecting the interpretation of the utterance. In this case too, neither di nor pada is acceptable.

(50) B: Iya. Henry Mintsburg ini ... mengelompokkan peran manajer tuh yes Henry Mintsburg this classify role manager that

... ke dalam tiga kelompok. DIR inside three group ‘Yes. Henry Mintsburg ... classifies the managerial role ... into three categories.’

(S/E-TUTO)

This second extended meaning is formulated as follows.

Dalam6: X is in grouping/category Y

The third extension of Dalam1 also represents the idea of groupings or categories but it is specifically concerned with linguistic expressions referring to sense categories, as found in fixed expressions such as dalam arti ‘in the sense’ and dalam pengertian ‘in the sense’ (lit. ‘in the understanding of’) ‘in the sense of’ in (51) and (52) respectively. In (51) the speaker is talking about the Indonesian equivalent of the English term ‘nickname’. Here the expression dalam arti ‘in the sense’ is used to clarify which sense of the Indonesian nama panggilan ‘calling name’ is the equivalent of the English term, because this Indonesian term can mean either ‘a short version of one’s name’ (e.g. Rudi for Rudianto) or ‘a nickname’, which is similar to English. In (52), taken from a lecture on contemporary Indonesian poetry, the expression dalam pengertian ‘in the sense’ is used to define the notion of urakan ‘rowdy’. Being fixed expressions, dalam in these examples cannot be substituted for by any other prepositions at all.


(51) D: Nah itu apa, itu nama-nya? Kalau bahasa Indonesia. so that what that name-DEF if language Indonesia

Apakah nama panggilan? Bukan. … Bukan dalam arti, ... e= ini. is.it name calling NEG NEG LOC meaning er this

Tapi semua nama, kan untuk panggilan? but all name EMP for calling ‘So what is that what is it called? in Indonesian. Is it a calling name? No.

Not in the sense, er ... of this. But all names are for calling, aren’t they?’ (ME/I-107)

(52) Jadi urakan dalam pengertian ... positif ... ya. so rowdy LOC sense positive yes ‘So rowdy in the ... positive sense ... right?’ (S/E-PMKI)

Further examples of this extended use of dalam are given in (53)–(55). In (53), hal ‘matter, case’ is also construed in terms of a bounded region, thus dalam hal ini (lit. ‘in this matter’) ‘in this case’ refers to the sense that is intended by the speaker. As with the previous expression, dalam is the only option here.

(53) Dalam hal ini ... arti-nya adalah air yang ada dalam LOC matter this meaning-DEF be water REL be LOC

... bumbu ... habis dan kering. spice all.gone and dry ‘In this case ... it means that the water in the ... spices ... is all gone and dry.’

(S/P-AROM)

The example in (54) suggests a ‘two-tier’ or double metaphorization. On the first tier, the term tanda tanya ‘question mark’, which, in its spatial sense refers to a punctuation mark, is used here in an extended sense to suggest a lack of information or clarity about an issue. In the second, the phrase dalam tanda tanya ‘in question’ (literally, ‘in question mark’) is used to suggest a mental state in which some required information or clarification is not available to a person. This example is different from English ‘in’ in expressions such as ‘in brackets’, ‘in quotes’, or ‘in parentheses’, even though tanda tanya ‘question mark’ seems to be similar to brackets or parantheses in that they all represent written markers of speech (see the next section).

(54) D: Ini dalam tanda tanya selalu, ya? this LOC mark question always yes ‘This is always in question, right?’ (ME/I-107)6

In (55), the expression dalam kaitannya dengan has a similar sense to the English expressions ‘in connection with’ and ‘within the context of’.

(55) Nah sebenarnya <da-> dalam ... kaitan-nya dengan peran manager, so actually LOC hook-DEF with role manager


182 Chapter 5

saya kira peran ini yang paling penting nih. 1Sg think role this REL most important EMP ‘So actually in ... connection with the role of a manager, I think this role

is the most important.’ (S/E-TUTO)

The phrase dalam kaitannya dengan ‘in connection with’, based on the idea of kaitan ‘connection’, may or may not be related to the noun kait ‘hook’ and its verbal form mengait ‘to hook by using a pole to whose end is attached a metal hook’ (e.g. mengait buah means to obtain fruit from a tree by poking with a ‘hook-pole’, mengait perahu dengan gancu means to hook a boat with the ‘hook-pole’ to bring the boat closer, and dia mengait kaki binatang itu dengan galah bergancu ‘s/he hooked the animal’s leg with a ‘hook-pole’ (Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:377)). Whether the fixed expression reflects this idea of physical attachment (an object attached to a hook) is debatable. If we perceive such a connection, then we could well suggest that for an object to be hooked implies that it is also ‘inside’ the round bend of the hook, and dalam, rather than di or pada, has become the selected preposition for conveying that implication.

The third extension of Dalam1 is specified as follows.

Dalam7: X is in the sense/context of Y

The three extensions of Dalam1, namely ‘state’, ‘grouping or category’, and ‘sense, context’, is summarized in Figure 5.4.

Dalam5: X is in state Y

Dalam1: X is inside 3-DIM space Y Dalam6: X is in grouping/category Y

Dalam7: X is in the sense/context of Y

Figure 5.4: Extensions of Dalam1

5.3.2 Extensions of ‘inside two-dimensional spaces’

Extensions of Dalam2 (‘X is inside two-dimensional space Y’) primarily revolve around the notion of linearization. In this respect, two extensions are identified. Dalam8 represents the linearization of activities while Dalam9, the linearization of speech.

Linearization of activities reflects a construal of activities as processes. That is, they take place through time, and time is construed linearly, bounded by the beginning point and the end point of an activity, as exemplified in (56a)–(59a). The activities are indicated by either active verbs such as memperoleh ‘get’ in (56a), memperpanjang ‘prolong, extend’ in (57a), and melakukan ‘do, carry out’ in (58a), or nominalized verbs such as pemanfaatan ‘utilization’ in (59a).

As with the extensions of Dalam1, neither di nor pada are acceptable here, as seen in (56b)–(59b) and (56c)–(59c) respectively.

(56) a. Memudahkan masyarakat nelayan dalam memperoleh ikan di facilitate community fishermen LOC get fish LOC

sepanjang pantai dan laut serta meningkatkan hasil along coast and sea as.well.as increase result


penangkapan ikan. catching fish ‘To make it easier for fishermen in catching fish along the coast and in the

sea as well as increase the quantity of their catch.’ (W/E-PELE)

b. *Memudahkan masyarakat nelayan di memperoleh ikan di sepanjang pantai dan laut serta meningkatkan hasil penangkapan ikan.

c. *Memudahkan masyarakat nelayan pada memperoleh ikan di sepanjang pantai dan laut serta meningkatkan hasil penangkapan ikan.

(57) a. Kemajuan teknologi banyak memberikan manfaat dalam advance technology much give benefit LOC

memperpanjang umur makanan. extend age food ‘Advances in technology bring a lot of benefit in extending the (shelf) life

of food.’ (W/P-KULKAS)

b. *Kemajuan teknologi banyak memberikan manfaat di memperpanjang umur makanan.

c. *Kemajuan teknologi banyak memberikan manfaat pada memperpanjang umur makanan.

(58) a. Dalam melakukan latihan ini anda harus berkonsentrasi. LOC do exercise this 2Sg/Pl must concentrate Lit. ‘In doing this exercise you must concentrate.’ ‘You must concentrate when doing this exercise.’ (W/P-LATI)

b. *Di melakukan latihan ini anda harus berkonsentrasi.

c. *Pada melakukan latihan ini anda harus berkonsentrasi.

Pada seems to be acceptable when the activity is ‘passive’ in the sense that it does not suggest the idea of ‘X is doing something’ but rather, ‘in activity X’, indicating that the activity itself is the reference point (Dirven 1993). In Indonesian, this is expressed by nominalized forms with the ‘peN-an’ or ‘per-an’ circumfix, as in pemanfaatan ‘utilization’ in (59).

(59) a. Masalah utama wilayah pesisir dan lautan di Indonesia problem main territory coast and sea LOC Indonesia

adalah terjadi-nya ketidakseimbangan dalam pemanfaatan sumberdaya be happen-DEF imbalance LOC utilization resource

serta penyebaran-nya dalam tata ruang nasional. as.well.as distribution-3Sg.POSS LOC order space national ‘The main problem facing the Indonesian coasts and seas is the imbalance

in the utilization and distribution of resources within the national layout.’ (W/E-PELE)

b. *Masalah utama wilayah pesisir dan lautan di Indonesia adalah terjadinya ketidakseimbangan di pemanfaatan sumberdaya serta penyebarannya dalam tata ruang nasional.

184 Chapter 5

c. Masalah utama wilayah pesisir dan lautan di Indonesia adalah terjadinya ketidakseimbangan pada pemanfaatan sumberdaya serta penyebarannya dalam tata ruang nasional.

The acceptability of pada in (59c), however, is contextually determined. The phrase terjadi pada ‘happen to’ in this example has a conventional abstract sense that is not concerned with linearization, but rather suggests the idea of an event or condition befalling and affecting something or someone. Thus (59c) suggests something like ‘an imbalance occurs and affects the utilization of resources’ rather than ‘an imbalance that is existing in the utilization of resources’.

The point here is not that pada cannot occur with nominalized forms, but rather that, unlike dalam, it cannot suggest the construal of an activity as being linear and bounded. For instance, it can also occur with other peN-an forms to suggest ‘X is at event Y’, e.g. Dia hadir pada peluncuran buku saya ‘S/he was present at the launching of my book’, suggesting the temporal notion ‘sameness of time’ between the Trajector (the person’s presence) and the Landmark (the event). When the Landmark is construed as a bounded, linear event however, pada is odd, e.g. Kami menjumpai banyak kendala dalam/*pada penulisan buku itu ‘We encountered many problems in/*at the writing of that book’.

A further example of the ‘linearization’ meaning of dalam is given in (60a). Here the abstract noun obrolan ‘conversation’ represents an activity that takes place over a bounded time, that is, it has a beginning and an end. Dalam is used here to talk about a mention of a particular topic during a conversation. Both di and pada are acceptable substitutes, as shown in (60b) and (60c) respectively.

(60) a. ... Jadi kalau dalam obrolan nanti muncul, ... Oh alhamdulillah. so if LOC conversation later appear oh thank god ‘So if in the conversation (it is) mentioned, … Oh, thank goodness.’ (ME/I-107)

b. jadi kalau di obrolan nanti muncul, Oh, alhamdulillah.

c. jadi kalau pada obrolan nanti muncul, Oh, alhamdulillah.

The acceptability of di and pada in (60b) and (60c) indicates that, when the activity can be construed as a temporal Path, dalam overlaps with di and pada, the difference being that dalam focuses on the boundedness of time, whereas di and pada do not.

The extended meaning of dalam indicating the linearization of activities can be specified as follows.

Dalam8: X occurs during activity Y

The second extension of Dalam2 represents the linearization of speech, as in (61), where metalinguistic fixed expressions such as dalam tanda petik ‘in inverted commas’ are thought of in terms of linear inclusions. Neither di nor pada is an acceptable substitute here.

(61) berdasarkan pertimbangan apakah hal-hal tersebut ... itu based.on consideration whether matter-RDP aforementioned that

bias ... dalam tanda petik ... menjadi batas bahasa atau dialek. can LOC sign pluck become boundary language or dialect ‘based on the consideration whether those things ... can ... in inverted commas

...be used to define a language or dialect.’ (S/E-DIAL)


A variant of the use is shown in (62). Here words such as names of actors are thought of as being included within a larger group of words and expressions (e.g. in a film’s or television series’ credits), all being linearly conceptualized. Di and pada are both acceptable alternatives, possibly because film’s or television’s credits can be construed either as a bounded or unbounded entity.

(62) a. Nama-nama itu bermunculan dalam berbagai judul sinetron Indonesia. name-RDP that appear LOC various title TV.serial Indonesia Lit. ‘Those names (of actors) appear in various titles of Indonesian television

series.’ ‘Those names (of actors) appear in Indonesian television series’ credits.’

(W/E-TELE)

b. Nama-nama itu bermunculan di berbagai judul sinetron Indonesia.

c. Nama-nama itu bermunculan pada berbagai judul sinetron Indonesia.

The second extension of Dalam2 can be specified as follows.

Dalam9: X is within abstract linear space Y

The extensions from Dalam2 are summarized in Figure 5.5.

Dalam8: X occurs during activity Y Dalam2: X is inside two-dimensional space Y



5.3.3 Extensions of ‘below the surface of the Landmark’

The metaphorical use of Dalam3 (‘X is below Y’s surface’) also suggests a state, similar to Dalam5 (‘X is in state Y’), which is an extension of Dalam1 (‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’). The only difference is that, whereas in the spatial use, the Landmark is primarily associated with water (and other liquid substances) and the ground, in the abstract use, ‘below the surface’ is understood as ‘deep in a state’, which is considered here as a variant of Dalam5 (‘X is in state Y’).

The reason for treating relations evoking the notion ‘deep in a state’ as a contextual variant rather a distinct meaning is that, in the metaphorical use, the idea of the depth of psychological state is not actually evoked by dalam, but rather is facilitated by the co-occurring verbs. In the absence of these verbs, dalam only suggests ‘be in a state’ but not ‘deep in a state’.

In (63a), the co-occurrence of the verb larut ‘dissolve, immerse’ with dalam suggests the state of being metaphorically immersed in thought (deep in thought). Di, as in (63b), is not acceptable in this case, because it makes the sentence sound literal (in other words, it gives a spatial reading). Pada, as in (63c), is equally unacceptable since it cannot express either the ‘below the surface’ or ‘inside’ senses.

186 Chapter 5

(63) a. Karena sepi mencengkam kami larut dalam pikiran masing-masing. because silence grip 1Pl dissolve LOC thought each-RDP Lit. ‘Because of the gripping silence, we are dissolved in our own thoughts.’ ‘In the gripping silence, we were immersed in our own thoughts.’

(Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:500) b. *Karena sepi mencengkam kami larut di pikiran masing-masing. c. *Karena sepi mencengkam kami larut pada pikiran masing-masing.

In (64a) dalam is used as a locational noun in the compound preposition ke dalam ‘into’, and co-occurs with the verb menjerumuskan (literally, ‘cause to fall into a hole’) ‘cause to fall into a situation’, to suggest ‘fall into the depth of a situation’. However, as shown in (64b), dalam can also occur without the directional preposition ke ‘to, toward’ because the verb already implies an abstract caused-motion. Without the verb, dalam only suggests ‘be in a situation’, e.g. Dunia sedang berada dalam perang ‘The world is currently in war’.

(64) a. menjerumuskan dunia ke dalam perang cause.to.fall.into.a.hole world DIR inside war ‘cause the world to go into a war’ (Echols and Shadily 1990:244) b. menjerumuskan dunia dalam perang.

The following shows that when in a dynamic context, dalam can also be substituted for by ke ‘to, toward’.

(65) a. pandai-pandai-lah dalam bergaul, jangan sampai terjerumus clever-RDP-EMP LOC socialize NEG.IMP arrive fall.into.a.hole ke lembah kehinaan. DIR valley humiliation ‘be smart in socializing, do not (let yourself) fall into the valley of humiliation.’

(Tim Penyusun Kamus 1988:362) b. pandai-pandailah dalam bergaul, jangan sampai terjerumus dalam lembah

kehinaan.

The case is different with the adverbial use of dalam in dalam-dalam ‘deeply’, e.g. Pikirkan dalam-dalam sebelum bertindak ‘Think deeply (carefully) before acting’, or in the transitive verb mendalami ‘study deeply’, e.g. Dia sedang mendalami ilmu astronomi ‘S/he is currently studying astronomy’. In these cases, dalam indeed suggests depth. The relation between the sense ‘depth’ in these uses, and also in the nominal and adjectival uses of dalam in (7) and (8) respectively, is generally referred to as heterosemy (Lichtenberk 1991) rather than polysemy.7

Figure 5.6 shows the notion ‘deep in a state’ as a variant of Dalam3

Dalam3: below the Landmark’s surface deep in a state

Figure 5.6: Variant of Dalam3

7 Lichtenberk (1991:476) defines ‘heterosemy’ as ‘cases (within a single language) where two or more

meanings or functions that are historically related, in the sense of deriving from the same ultimate source, are borne by reflexes of the common source element that belong in different morphosyntactic categories’.


5.3.4 Extensions of part-whole relations

Dalam4 (‘X is part of Y’s structure/composition), which represents part-whole relations, provides the source of three extensions, as exemplified below in (66)–(68).

The first extension refers to an activity being part of a set of practises. In (66a), the activity of cutting the ceremonial, cone-shaped rice is suggested as being part of the set of Sundanese cultural practises. Di, as in (66b), is also acceptable here, as also shown in the spatial part-whole cases discussed earlier. With regard to pada, it was pointed out earlier in relation to the spatial part-whole relations that it can also substitute for dalam, particularly when the relations are abstract. This is also the case in (66b). Indeed, in the source text, dalam is used alternatingly with pada for the same context (see the extensions of part-whole relations with pada in Chapter 4).

(66) a. Pemotongan tumpeng dalam adat Sunda tidak dari cutting.of tumpeng LOC tradition Sundanese NEG from

poncrot-nya tip.of.cone-3Sg.POSS ‘The cutting of tumpeng (ceremonial rice) within the Sundanese tradition

does not start from the tip of the cone.’ (W/E-NASI)

b. Pemotongan tumpeng di adat Sunda tidak dari poncrotnya.

c. Pemotongan tumpeng pada adat Sunda tidak dari poncrotnya.

This extended meaning can be specified as follows.

Dalam10: Activity X is part of the set of practises Y

The second metaphorical extension of part-whole relations represents a convention-alized way of talking about features of language as exemplified in (67a)–(71a), suggesting the notion ‘feature X is part of linguistic concept Y’. Di is acceptable in some cases but is awkward in others, while pada is not acceptable.

In (67a), dalam reflects the construal of a language as an inventory of expressions.

(67) a. Atau dalam bahasa lain: me too product. or in language other me too product Lit. ‘Or (the term) in another language (is): a ‘me too’ product.’ ‘In other words: me too product.’ (W/E-TELE)

b. Atau di bahasa lain: me too product.

c. *Atau pada bahasa lain: me too product.

The unacceptability of pada seems to be driven by the conventionalization of dalam in the discourse about language and its features (e.g. its vocabulary and grammar). Examples from other sources, as shown below, support this observation. Di can occur in this discourse, as in (67b) and (70b), but it makes the utterance sound colloquial, and in other cases, it creates awkwardness, as seen in (68b), (69b), and (71b).

(68) a. Kelas kata dalam bahasa Indonesia class word LOC language Indonesia ‘Word class in Indonesian’ (Kridalaksana 1986:title page)

188 Chapter 5

b. ?Kelas kata di bahasa Indonesia

c. *Kelas kata pada bahasa Indonesia

(69) a. Urutan kata dalam kalimat merupakan tugas struktural…. Order word LOC sentence be function structural ‘Word order in a sentence reflects a structural function ….’

(Slametmuljana 1957:2)

b. ?Urutan kata di kalimat merupakan tugas struktural ....

c. *Urutan kata pada kalimat merupakan tugas struktural ....

(70) a. Pembaca, konon the f… word dalam bahasa Inggris reader apparently the f… word LOC language English

tersebut sedemikian kasar dan jorok, sehingga mustahil aforementioned that rough and dirty such.that impossible

dapat kita temukan padanan-nya dalam bahasa lain. can 1Pl find equivalent-DEF LOC language other ‘Readers, apparently the f… word in English is that rude and dirty that it is

impossible to find an equivalent in other languages.’ (Charlie 1999:69)

b. Pembaca, konon the f… word di bahasa Inggris tersebut sedemikian kasar dan kotor sehingga mustahil dapat kita temukan padanannya di bahasa lain.

c. *Pembaca, konon the f… word pada bahasa Inggris tersebut sedemikian kasar dan kotor sehingga mustahil dapat kita temukan padanannya pada bahasa lain.

(71) a. Itu-lah sebab-nya kalimat dalam ragam tulisan lebih eksplisit that-EMP reason-DEF sentence LOC register written more explicit

sifat-nya. characteristic-DEF ‘That is why sentences in written language are more explicit in nature.’

(Moeliono 1989:115)

b. ?Itulah sebabnya kalimat di ragam tulisan lebih ekplisit sifatnya.

c. ?Itulah sebabnya kalimat pada ragam tulisan lebih eksplisit sifatnya.

This extended use of dalam can be specified as follows.

Dalam11: Feature X is part of linguistic concept Y

The third metaphorical extension of Dalam4 is represented by examples referring to positions in hierarchical structures, e.g. professional organisations, extending the notion ‘part of’ into ‘consists of’ (e.g. business organizations consist of managers and workers), as exemplified in (72a). Di and pada are both good alternatives in this use, as shown in (72b) and (72c) respectively. Di in this case merely locates the abstract Trajector with respect to an abstract Landmark, while pada shares the part-whole meaning of dalam when the relation is abstract, as pointed out earlier in §5.2.4.

(72) a. Nah ... kemudian e= … tadi kita udah tanyakan manajer PRT then er previously 1Pl PERF ask manager


dalam organisasi LOC organization ‘So then, ...er we have already asked (you) about (the role of) manager in

an organization’ (S/E-TUTO)

b. Nah, kemudian, e.. tadi udah kita tanyakan manajer di organisasi c. Nah, kemudian, e.. tadi udah kita tanyakan manajer pada organisasi

The meaning of the third extension of Dalam4 is specified as follows.

Dalam12: Position X is part of hierarchy Y

The three extensions are summarized diagrammatically in Figure 5.7.

Dalam4: X is part of Y’s structure Dalam10: Activity X is part of set of practises Y




A summary of the inter-substitutability between dalam, di, and pada in non-spatial uses is given in Figure 5.8.

Source of extension

Metaphorical extensions

Dalam Di Pada Example no.

Dalam5: X is in state Y * * 44, 45, 46 Dalam6: X is in grouping/category Y

* * 47, 48, 49 Dalam1: ‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’ Dalam7: X is in the

sense/context of Y * * 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

Dalam8: X occurs during activity Y

* * 56, 57, 58, 59. (Note: di and pada are acceptable in 60 where the activity can be construed as bounded time)

Dalam2: ‘X is inside two-dimensional space Y’


* * 61. (Note: di and pada acceptable in 62 because the relation can be construed as unbounded)

Dalam3: ‘X is below Y’s surface’

Deep in state (contextual variant of Dalam5)

* * 63, 64, 65

Dalam10: Activity X is part of the set of practises Y

66


/? */? 67, 68, 69, 70, 71

Dalam4: ‘X is part of Y’s structure/ composition


72

Note: acceptable; * unacceptable; ? awkward

Figure 5.8: The interchangeability between dalam, di, and pada in non-spatial uses

190 Chapter 5

It is evident from the above figure that the inter-substitutability between dalam and di, which is always observable in the spatial uses, does not always transfer to the metaphorical uses. This finding further suggests the following.

(a) The superordinate:hyponymic relation between di and dalam does not extend to non-spatial cases.

(b) There seems to be a functional ‘assignment’ of uses, the superordinate term di being selected predominantly for conveying spatial relations, whereas the hyponym is predominantly used for abstract relations.

(c) Dalam, being the more semantically specific term, develops more metaphorical extensions than di, which is the more general term. As pointed out in the previous chapter, this pattern is also observed in pada.

As can be seen from the above figure, the convergence between dalam, di, and pada is predominantly in the metaphorical extensions of the part-whole meaning of Dalam4 (‘X is part of Y’). In this case, the meanings of dalam are similar to the interpretations of di. In Dalam11 di seems awkward because it renders a sentence colloquial. The acceptability of pada in Dalam10 and Dalam12 suggest a partial overlap between the part-whole meanings in dalam and those in pada. The fact that pada is not possible in Dalam11 indicates that dalam, but not pada, has been conventionally assigned to expressions about features in language.

5.4 Temporal meanings

Moving on to temporal use, most previous studies, with the exception of Lapoliwa (1992:52–53), suggest that dalam is limited to a temporal span or duration. Lapoliwa mentions the additional possibility that dalam can suggest a temporal point and supports his argument by applying Vendler-style tests designed to tease out aspectual meanings (see Vendler 1967:100–101). To examine the claim, let us first turn to those tests. First, to test the meaning of dalam as a temporal point, Lapoliwa uses a test with kapan ‘when’. For example: (73) a. Kapan pekerjaan ini harus selesai? when work this must finish ‘When does this work have to be completed?’

b. Pekerjaan ini harus selesai dalam minggu/bulan/tahun/abad ini. work this must finish LOC week/month/year/decade this ‘The work must be completed (within) this week/month/year/decade.’

(Lapoliwa 1994:53)

Lapoliwa argues that if dalam can be used to answer the question with kapan ‘when’, as shown in (73b), this suggests that it marks a temporal point. However, this claim is inaccurate, since what is conceptualized as a point here is not the temporal Landmark, but rather the Trajector, which is the punctual event of completing the work. The Landmark represented by the dalam phrase here suggests a duration or bounded temporal Path, but the event of completing the work can be thought of as a point. Thus the relational meaning of (73) is something like ‘a temporal point anchored somewhere along a bounded temporal Path’, which is an extension of Dalam1 (where the Trajector is inside a 3-dimensional object).


Lapoliwa’s argument regarding this temporal meaning is also far from consistent. On the one hand he claims that dalam suggests a point, and on the other, he states that it suggests saat di dalam suatu kurun waktu ‘moment within a duration’, which is essentially its relational meaning. This inconsistency seems to reflect his confusion about which entity in a prepositional relation is viewed as a point and which is a bounded temporal Path. This confusion also leads Lapoliwa (and also Effendi and Aritonang 1993:50) to erroneously assume that, as a temporal point, dalam cannot be followed by a temporal phrase denoting what he calls saat tertentu yang singkat sekali, literally meaning ‘a particular point in time which is very brief’, such as a particular day or any other calendrical time. For example:

(74) *Pekerjaan ini harus selesai dalam hari ini/tanggal 1 Maret/hari Rabu. ‘This work must be completed today/on 1 March/on Wednesday.’

(Lapoliwa 1992:53)

The issue here is not that a day can be viewed objectively as a ‘very brief time’, since a day can also be thought of as a unit of duration such as when we think of it as a 24-hour time unit. More the point is that the particularization of the day (e.g. ‘today’ as opposed to tomorrow or yesterday, a particular day of the month such as ‘1 March’, or day of the week such as ‘Wednesday’) reflects a conceptualization of a day as a definite point within a broader span. Lapoliwa’s example in (74) in fact serves as evidence that the Landmark of dalam essentially suggests a bounded temporal Path and has little, if at all, to do with brevity of time in an objective sense. Notice below that when a day is viewed as duration, dalam is acceptable.

(75) Dalam satu hari ini saja sudah lima orang di-pecat. LOC one day this only PERF five person PASS-sack ‘Within (the span of) this one day alone five persons have already been sacked.’

Like the other analysts, Lapoliwa states that dalam also indicates duration. According to him, when used in this sense, dalam is usually followed by a noun meaning ‘time, duration, period’ such as waktu, masa and tempo. For example:

(76) Menurut pengalaman saya kadar gula biasanya menurun according.to experience 1Sg level sugar usually decrease

secara berangsur dalam waktu 2–4 minggu. in.manner.of gradual LOC time 2–4 week ‘In my experience, sugar level usually decreases gradually within 2–4 weeks.’

(Ramlan 1980:45)

Lapoliwa argues further that in this use dalam can only be preceded by verbs that encode prestasi ‘achievement’ such as mengerjakan ‘do something’; consequently, those which do not encode achievement cannot co-occur with it. As a test to determine a verb’s compatibility with dalam, he employs another Vendler-style question with berapa lama ‘how long’ and claims that the verb mengerjakan ‘do something’ meets this test, as follows.

(77) a. Berapa.lama anda mengerjakan tugas ini? how.long 2Sg do task this Lit. ‘How long did you do this task?’ ‘How long did it take you to do this task?’

192 Chapter 5

b. Tugas ini saya kerjakan dalam waktu/masa/tempo dua jam. task this 1Sg do LOC time two hour Lit. ‘This task I did within the duration of two hours.’ ‘I did this task in two hours.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:54)

According to Lapoliwa (1992:54), verbs such as pergi ‘go’, tinggal ‘stay, live’, and bekerja ‘work’, are incompatible with dalam, as shown in (78b), (78c), and (78d).

(78) a. Berapa.lama dia akan pergi ke sana? how.long 2Sg FUT go DIR there ‘How long will s/he go there (for)?’

b. *Dia akan pergi ke sana dalam dua hari. 3Sg FUT go DIR there LOC two day ‘S/he will go there in two days.’

c. *Dia akan tinggal di sana dalam dua hari ‘S/he will live there in two days.’

d. *Dia akan bekerja di sana dalam dua hari. ‘S/he will work there in two days.’

However, the assumption here is, again, misleading for two reasons. First, as with the previous test with kapan, this test, which is adopted from English, is actually aimed at identifying verbal and aspectual meaning, not prepositional meaning, and the unacceptable answers here seem to be devised purely to prove the validity of the aspectual test. Secondly, and more importantly, the unacceptability of the sentences above can in fact be attributed to their being written in a manner contradictory to what Lapoliwa himself specifies. We recall that according to him, dalam is to be followed by waktu, masa, or tempo when indicating duration. None of these nouns is included in the three sentences above. Notice below that if we add waktu or tempo, the same sentences become acceptable.

(79) Dia akan pergi ke/tinggal di/bekerja di sana dalam waktu/tempo dua hari. Lit. ‘S/he will go/live/work there within two days.’ ‘S/he will go/live/work there in two days.’

Masa ‘period’ is unacceptable in this context, not because it clashes with the verb bekerja ‘work’ but rather because this word is commonly associated with a particular kind of period or phase, such as masa kanak-kanak ‘childhood period’, masa pembangunan ‘period of development’, masa tanam padi ‘time of rice sowing’, masa tahanan ‘period of arrest, prison sentence’ or masa depan ‘future time’. Its unacceptability shows that waktu, tempo, and masa are not identical in meaning, and consequently, Lapoliwa’s assumption that they can be used to identify the ‘duration’ meaning of dalam is also ill-conceived.

The acceptability of dalam in (79) actually accords with Vendler’s definition of ‘achievements’, which states that a punctual event happens some time during a particular time stretch: ‘A won a race between t1 and t2 means that the time instant at which A won that race is between t1 and t2’ (1967:106). Thus in (79), as in the previous examples, the temporal Landmark is bounded but the future event of going, living, or working—which constitutes the Trajector—is punctual. That is, it will take place at an instant during that time. The question in (78a) is therefore better framed with kapan ‘when’ rather than berapa lama ‘how long’ to accord with the event’s punctuality. This is rather different from (77b) where the event is viewed as a continuous process, ending with the completion


of the task. This example corresponds to Vendler’s ‘accomplishment’ where the completion of the task presupposes the continuous process which took place beforehand.

In short, there are two temporal meanings of dalam, which correspond with Vendler’s ‘accomplishment’ and ‘achievement’ respectively, namely, one in which dalam measures the activity phase, and the other in which it measures the span from the primary reference time to that when a practical activity is said to occur. This is the same polysemy as with the English ‘in’ exemplified by such sentences as ‘I completed this task in two hours’ (accomplishment: duration to completion) and ‘She will leave in two days’ (achievement: duration to inception).

The idea that dalam has two temporal meanings seems to stem from a misconception about the interchangeability of dalam and pada. Several studies have pointed out these two prepositions can be substituted for one another when used temporally. For example:

(80) Kapal itu tenggelam dalam/pada tahun 1985. ship that sink LOC year 1985 ‘The ship sank in 1985.’ (Sneddon 1996:191)

The fact that pada can occur in the same context as dalam such as in this example suggests that there is an overlap in meaning, and if temporal pada, as Lapoliwa claims (1992:51, see previous chapter), reflects the conceptualization of time as a point, then surely dalam also shares this meaning. However, Lapoliwa also shares the contention that dalam indicates duration, therefore this preposition indicates time both as a point and as a duration.

As has already been pointed out, interchangeability may or may not suggest synonymy. That is, even though the two prepositions can occur in the same context, they may reflect different construals and may have different sources of extension. Thus in (80) both pada and dalam suggest that the event of the boat sinking happens within the temporal span which is the year 1985. However, pada extends from the spatial positional notion of ‘X is at place/position Y’, which, in temporal use, is understood as ‘sameness of time’. The temporal use of dalam, on the other hand, is an extension of the notion of ‘X is inside three-dimensional space Y’ in Dalam1, which, in temporal use, is understood as ‘Event X occurs within duration Y’. This argument finds support in the fact that not all cases with dalam can be substituted with pada. Contexts which accentuate the idea of time as duration or limitedness of time, such as in (76), which is repeated below with pada as (81), or (78b), repeated below with pada as (82), are those that are particularly resistant to pada. For example:

(81) *Menurut pengalaman saya kadar gula biasanya menurun secara berangsur pada waktu 2–4 minggu.

‘In my experience, sugar level usually comes down gradually within 2–4 weeks.’

(82) *Dia akan pergi ke/tinggal di/bekerja di sana pada waktu/tempo dua hari. Lit. ‘S/he will go/live/work there within two days.’ ‘S/he will go/live/work there in two days.’

Previous studies generally do not indicate the relation between spatial and non-spatial uses. One exception, however, is Ramlan who implies that temporal use is derived from the spatial use, by stating that makna ‘ruang’ itu sering dihubungkan dengan waktu, sehingga kata depan dalam menandai makna ‘jangka waktu’ ‘the notion of ‘space’ is often related to time, hence the preposition dalam denotes a ‘temporal span’ (1980:44). The observation of relatedness granted, this statement is nonetheless very loose and does not

194 Chapter 5

say, for instance, how the concept of ruang ‘space’ comes to be associated with time. Neither does it specify how the association between the two concepts leads to the notion of a time span.

The case is not that three-dimensional spaces, as is suggested by the term ruang, are directly associated with time spans as Ramlan suggests, since time is generally conceptualized linearly, not three-dimensionally, and therefore it would be unusual to find a conceptual extension from a three-dimensional space to a linear configuration. For instance, one cannot use dalam to refer to being at a stopping point on a stretch of road from A to B, for example *Dia beristirahat dalam setiap tempat perhentian dalam perjalanan dari Melbourne ke Adelaide ‘S/he took a rest inside every rest area on the trip from Melbourne to Adelaide’. Rather, it is the notion of being wholly inside a bounded two-dimensional space (Dalam2) that is metaphorically transferred to the notion of an activity occurring during a particular duration. Thus spatial boundedness is extended to temporal delimitation.

The use of dalam to indicate bounded time can be observed in (83a)–(85a). The examples differ, however, in terms of how the Trajector is described. In (83a) and (84a), the activity of berkembang ‘develop’ and the ‘active’ state of pemborosan ‘wasting’ are suggested as occurring throughout the entire phase specified in the Landmark. Neither pada nor di is an acceptable substitute here, as seen in the (83b)–(85a) and (83c)–(85c) respectively.

(83) a. Dalam waktu singkat di daerah ini berkembang hampir tiga LOC time brief LOC area this develop almost three

ratus dapur pembakaran arang. hundred kitchen burning charcoal ‘In the space of a short time in this area there has developed almost three

hundred centres for charcoal burning.’ (W/E-PELE)

b. *Pada waktu singkat di daerah ini berkembang hampir tiga ratus dapur pembakaran arang.

c. *Di waktu singkat di daerah ini berkembang hampir tiga ratus dapur pembakaran arang.

(84) a. Jadi dalam waktu satu tahun kita mengalami pemborosan waktu so LOC time one year 1Pl experience wasting time

sebanyak 1440 juta jam. as.much.as 1440 million hour ‘So within the span of a year we waste as much as 1440 million hours.’

(W/E-MOBN)

b. *Jadi pada waktu satu tahun kita mengalami pemborosan waktu sebanyak 1440 juta jam.

c. *Jadi di waktu satu tahun kita mengalami pemborosan waktu sebanyak 1440 juta jam.

A variant of the use is shown in (85a). Here the relation features a multiplex Trajector, i.e. an activity occurring more than once over the time span specified as the Landmark. The times that the activity is carried out are then thought of as individual points within the


bounded temporal Path. In this context also, dalam cannot be substituted by either di or pada.

(85) a. Program yang wajib di-lakukan untuk kulit campuran adala program REL must PASS-do for skin mixed be

menggunakan masker dua kali dalam se-minggu. use mask two time LOC one-week ‘The program which must be followed by (those having) mixed skin type

is using a mask twice (in) a week.’ (W/P-PERA)

b. *Program yang wajib dilakukan untuk kulit campuran adalah menggunakan masker dua kali pada seminggu.

c. *Program yang wajib dilakukan untuk kulit campuran adalah menggunakan masker dua kali di seminggu.

Even though pada and di are unacceptable in (80b) and (80c) respectively, there are contexts where they seem to be acceptable in a relation with a multiple Trajector, e.g. in (86) and (87).

(86) a. Perampokan itu terjadi dua kali pada minggu ketiga. robbery that happen two time LOC week third ‘The two robberies happened in the third week.’

b. Perampokan itu terjadi dua kali di minggu ketiga.

(87) a. Mereka datang ke Australia dua kali pada tahun itu. 3Pl come DIR Australia two time LOC year that ‘They came to Australia twice in that year.’

b. Mereka datang ke Australia dua kali di tahun itu.

However, in these contexts, the multiple events are treated as an aggregate that is anchored in a particular point in time (i.e. ‘the third week’ and ‘that year’), thereby evoking the idea of ‘sameness of time’ between the aggregate events and the reference time. Notice that if we change the time phrases to become indefinite with seminggu ‘a/one week’ and setahun ‘a/one year’ respectively, emphasizing their durative meaning, neither di nor pada is acceptable.

(88) a. *Perampokan itu terjadi dua kali pada seminggu.

b. *Perampokan itu terjadi dua kali di seminggu.

(89) a. *Mereka datang ke Australia dua kali pada setahun.

b. *Mereka datang ke Australia dua kali di setahun.

The interchangeability between dalam and di and pada in temporal use, then, is only possible when the event that constitutes the Trajector is a single (or is treated as a single) punctual event. And even in the interchangeable cases, it remains that only dalam expresses duration. Di and pada can only occur in contexts where the event and the Landmark time are thought of as occurring at the same time.

The temporal meanings of dalam are summarized diagrammatically in Figure 5.9 and 5.11. Figure 5.10 is a contextual variant of the use in Figure 5.9. Interchangeability with di or pada is relevant only in use 1a in Figure 5.9.

196 Chapter 5

event X linear time Z

time span Y

Figure 5.9: Temporal use of dalam 1a (‘Event X occurs some time during time span Y’; dalam measures the span within which an activity occurs; interchangeable with di and pada)

event X1 event X2 linear time Z

time span Y

Figure 5.10: Temporal use of dalam 1b (‘Event X1 and X2 occur at different time points during time span Y’; dalam measures the span within which multiple activities occur)

event X

linear time Z

time span Y

Figure 5.11: Temporal use of dalam 2 (‘Event X pertains during time span Y’; dalam measuring the activity phase)

The following two examples provide further illustration of the interchangeability between the temporal use of dalam, pada, and di. It should be noted that the (b) examples with di might be rejected by many analysts on the ground of being substandard.

(90) a. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi dalam bulan yang lalu. event tragic that happen LOC month REL past ‘That tragic event took place some time during last month.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

b. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi pada bulan yang lalu. Lit. ‘The tragic event took place in/at the last month.’ ‘The tragic event took place last month.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

c. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi di bulan yang lalu.


(91) a. Dalam tahun ini pemilihan umum akan di-langsungkan. LOC year this election general FUT PASS-hold ‘Some time during this year a general election will be held.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

b. Pada tahun ini pemilihan umum akan dilangsungkan. Lit. ‘On/at this year a general election will be held.’ This year a general election will be held.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

c. Di tahun ini pemilihan umum akan dilangsungkan.

(92) a. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi dalam bulan yang lalu. event tragic that happen LOC month REL past ‘The tragic event took place some time during last month.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

b. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi pada bulan yang lalu. Lit. ‘That tragic event took place on/at last month.’ ‘That tragic event took place last month.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

c. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi di bulan yang lalu.

In (93), dalam cannot be replaced by either pada or di since the event that constitutes the Trajector (the worsening of the road condition) occurs within the period of time mentioned in the Landmark (Temporal use 2).

(93) a. Dalam waktu dua bulan jalan itu sudah rusak lagi. LOC time two month road that PERF destroyed again ‘Within two months the road was in bad condition again.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

b *Pada waktu dua bulan jalan itu sudah rusak.

c. *Di waktu dua bulan jalan itu sudah rusak.

Contrary to claims, dalam can in fact occur with those temporal terms referred to by Lapoliwa as designating saat tertentu yang singkat sekali, literally meaning ‘a particular point in time which is very brief’ (1992:53), and by Effendi and Aritonang (1993:51) as periode waktu yang kecil ‘a short period’, such as saat and waktu—both meaning ‘moment, time’, but only when these terms are used in the durative sense. For example, in the following, the action of showing concern is suggested as a continuous process occuring throughout the entire period of the monetary crisis. The crisis is, in this case, thought of as bounded time.

(94) Dalam saat/waktu krisis moneter seperti sekarang ini kita LOC time crisis monetary like now this 1Pl

harus prihatin. must show.concern ‘In time of monetary crisis such as now we must tighten our belts.’

Notice below that when the terms are used to refer to a definite temporal point, dalam becomes unacceptable, whereas pada is still acceptable.

(95) a. *Dia akan berangkat dalam saat/waktu ini. 3Sg FUT depart LOC moment this ‘S/he will leave at this moment.’ (Lapoliwa 1992:52)

b. Dia akan berangkat pada saat/waktu ini.

198 Chapter 5

For further illustration, consider the following example, which is said by Effendi and Aritonang to be unacceptable because the Landmark hari Sabtu ‘Saturday’ suggests a ‘short period’:

(96) *Dia tidak masuk kantor dalam hari Sabtu. 3Sg NEG enter office LOC day Saturday ‘S/he didn’t come to the office on Saturday.’ (Effendi and Aritonang 1993:50)

Dalam is unacceptable here, though, not because ‘Saturday’ refers to a short period per se, since, as mentioned earlier this chapter, a day can also be viewed in terms of a 24 hour span, but rather because ‘Saturday’ is here construed merely as a particular point along the span of a week. As we saw earlier, when a day is construed as a span, dalam is acceptable. Below is a further example:

(97) Ada 24 jam dalam se-hari. exist 24 hour LOC one-day ‘There are 24 hours in a day.’

What these examples show, then, is that first, constraints on a use need to be expressed relative to phrasal meaning rather than the Landmark alone, and secondly, that the meaning of such terms as saat and waktu needs to be determined by how they are used in context rather than purely in terms of their isolated, objectively-defined meanings.

The two temporal meanings of dalam can be formulated as follows. Dalam13: Event X occurs some time during time span Y Dalam14: Event X pertains during time span Y

5.5 Contrasting locations with dalam

It is common for dalam to appear alongside another preposition in nested constructions, in which the location of the Trajector is nested within another (usually larger) location. In this section I will show that in such constructions, the juxtaposition of dalam with another preposition reflects semantic contrast.

Contrast is most evident in cases where the two prepositions cannot be substituted for one another, as seen in (98a). Here dalam is used alongside pada to show the contrast between the meaning ‘X is at place/position Y’ in Pada1 and ‘X is inside three-dimensional object Y’ in Dalam1. The relation between the Trajector and first Landmark (i.e. between the cushion and the insole) cannot be expressed with dalam since dalam cannot express a general positional spatial relation that is not focused on the notion ‘inside’ or ‘under and inside’, as shown in (98b). Pada here is used to mean ‘place/position’ but can be interpreted as ‘X is positioned to be in direct physical contact with Y’. Dalam is selected for the second Landmark to refer to the space inside the concavity in shoes, which, as shown in (98c), cannot be substituted for by pada since pada cannot express the notion ‘inside’.

(98) a. Di sini-lah perlu-nya bantalan pada alas dalam sepatu. LOC here-EMP need-DEF cushion LOC sole LOC shoe Lit. ‘This is where (where there is) a need (to have) a cushion on the insole

inside the shoes.’ ‘This is where it is important to have a cushion on the insole of (your) shoes.’

(W/P-CARA)


b. Di sinilah perlunya bantalan *dalam alas dalam sepatu.

c. Di sinilah perlunya bantalan pada alas *pada sepatu.

This semantic distinction obtains even in contexts that may seem to suggest otherwise, such as in (99a).

(99) a. Kalau mau lebih awet, sayuran dan buah dapat di-bungkus if want more lasting vegetable and fruit can PASS-wrap

plastik sebelum di-simpan pada kotak paling bawah dalam kulkas. plastic before PASS-store LOC box most low LOC fridge ‘If (you) want (vegetables and fruit) to last longer, vegetable and fruit can be

wrapped in plastic before storing in the lowest compartment in the fridge.’ (W/P-MENY)

b. Kalau mau lebih awet, sayuran dan buah dapat dibungkus plastik sebelum disimpan dalam kotak paling bawah dalam kulkas.

c. Kalau mau lebih awet, sayuran dan buah dapat dibungkus plastik sebelum disimpan pada kotak paling bawah *pada kulkas.

Here pada might appear to suggest ‘inside a three-dimensional space’, similar to dalam. This observation might be supported by the fact that it can be substituted for by dalam, as in (99b). It might also appear that the pada is used here to contrast a smaller enclosed space (i.e. the fridge’s bottom compartment) with a larger enclosed space (the fridge). However, either of these points of observation cannot be correct, since dalam cannot be substituted for by pada in (99c), which should be possible if ‘inside’ is indeed part of the semantic range of pada. Rather, pada is used here to designate the position of the compartment inside the fridge, namely, at the bottom, as indicated by the phrase kotak paling bawah ‘the lowest compartment’, and not the position of the vegetables and fruit being inside that compartment. Pada kotak paling bawah thus implicates ‘not any other above it’. The spatial nested configuration of (99a) can therefore be clarified as follows: (a) the vegetables and fruit are put inside the plastic bag; (b) the compartment is at the lowest part of the interior of the fridge; (c) the plastic bag is placed there.

The fact that pada cannot express ‘inside’ can be further shown in contexts where the Landmark emphasizes the idea of an enclosure, as in (100a). As shown in (100b), both of the occurrences of dalam here cannot be substituted for by pada.

(100) a. Setelah itu bungkus rapat dalam plastik dan masukkan after that wrap tight LOC plastic and put.in

dalam freezer. LOC freezer ‘After that wrap (the fish) tightly in a plastic bag and put in the freezer.’

(W/P-MENY)

b. Setelah itu bungkus rapat *pada plastik dan masukkan *pada freezer.

Semantic contrast however, is not always a motivation for the occurrence of dalam with another preposition. As will be discussed in the next section, alternating between prepositions often simply reflects an avoidance of monotony—a point that is already alluded to in the previous chapters.

200 Chapter 5

5.6 Alternation of dalam with other prepositions

As in the previous chapters, I use the term ‘alternation’ and ‘alternating use’ here to refer to the occurrence of two or more prepositions in a stretch of discourse to designate the same referent or closely similar referents. In this section I focus on the alternating uses of dalam with its compound counterparts di dalam ‘inside’ and ke dalam ‘into’ to strengthen the argument that alternation may be motivated by pragmatic factors such as the need to emphasize a certain part of discourse, or simply stylistics, such as the desire to make an utterance sound less monotonous.

5.6.1 Dalam and di dalam

Dalam is generally taken to be a short form of di dalam ‘inside’ (see Slametmuljana 1957:179 and Chaer 1990:30, among others), implying that the two forms are synonymous, the simple form di being ellipsed when dalam alone is used. A rather obvious question that arises is, if indeed this claim was correct, on what grounds speakers may select one form over the other.

Part of the answer to this question, relating specifically to these two forms, has already been touched upon in Chapter 3, in the discussion about the compound forms of di. For instance, di dalam can be used to emphasize the ‘inside’ meaning of dalam, as shown in (101), repeated here from Chapter 3.

(101) Walaupun akhir-nya kendaraan kami berhasil although last-DEF vehicle 1Pl succeed

‘di-selamatkan’ dan kami dapat melanjutkan PASS-save and 1Pl can continue

perjalanan, di hati saya terbersit ingin pulang saja trip LOC heart 1Sg flash want go.home only


Selama perjalanan, dalam hati tak henti-henti-nya throughout trip LOC heart NEG stop-RDP-DEF

saya minta maaf kepada Ibu. 1Sg ask forgiveness DIR mother


Sekali lagi, dalam hati (cuma di dalam hati!) once more LOC heart only LOC inside heart

saya nyuwun pangapuro pada Ibu. 1Sg ask forgiveness LOC mother ‘Although at last our vehicle was ‘saved’ and we could resume our trip,

in (di) my heart I just wished to go home. Throughout the trip, in (dalam) my heart I never stopped asking my mother

for forgiveness. Once again, in (dalam) my heart (only in (di dalam) my heart!) did I ask for

my mother’s forgiveness.’ (W/N-KUAL)


The fact that the two forms can be used to fulfil different communicative functions suggest that they are not completely synonymous. The compound di dalam in this case is a marked expression (Levinson 1999:214), used to indicate that the speaker wants to implicate something other than the one that is conveyed by the simpler form dalam.

Another piece of evidence showing that dalam is not wholly synonymous with di dalam can be seen in the awkwardness of di dalam in the temporal cases in the (b) version of examples (102), (103), and (104), repeated from (90), (85), and (83) respectively.

(102) a. Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi dalam bulan yang lalu. event tragic that happen LOC month REL past ‘That tragic event took place some time during last month.’ (Chaer 1990:31)

b. *Peristiwa tragis itu terjadi di dalam bulan yang lalu.

(103) a. Program yang wajib di-lakukan untuk kulit campuran adalah program REL must PASS-do for skin mixed be

menggunakan masker dua kali dalam se-minggu. use mask two time LOC one-week ‘The program which must be followed by (those having) mixed skin type is

using a mask twice (in) a week.’ (W/P-PERA)

b. *Program yang wajib dilakukan untuk kulit campuran adalah menggunakan masker dua kali di dalam seminggu.

(104) a. Dalam waktu singkat di daerah ini berkembang hampir tiga LOC time brief LOC area this develop almost three

ratus dapur pembakaran arang. hundred kitchen burning charcoal ‘In the space of a short time in this area there has developed almost three

hundred centres for charcoal burning.’ (W/E-PELE)

b. ??Di dalam waktu singkat di daerah ini berkembang hampir tiga ratus dapur pembakaran arang.

The awkwardness of di dalam seems to stem from the fact that the temporal use of dalam essentially suggests time as a bounded Path, which is not the salient feature in the temporal use of di (see Chapter 3). Di simply suggests that the event constituting the Trajector happens at the same time as the time specified as its Landmark, irrespective of whether the time can be, in other contexts, construed as a span or a temporal point. The compound form di dalam, then, cannot occur in temporal use because di and dalam express incompatible temporal meanings.

In other contexts, dalam and di dalam indeed seem synonymous. Consider the example in (105), taken from a lecture on management, involving two speakers.

(105) A: Nah ... kemudian e= … tadi kita udah tanyakan so then er previously 1Pl PERF ask

manajer dalam organisasi, perbedaan antara manajer dan bukan manager LOC organization difference between manager and NEG

manajer, ... kemudian ... sesungguhnya manager then actually

202 Chapter 5

apa ... peran manajer di dalam sebuah organisasi? what role manager LOC inside CLASS organization

B: Iya. Peran manajer sebagai – yes role manager as

... di dalam suatu organisasi dia juga sebagai perencana LOC inside INDEF organization 3Sg also as planner

A: ‘So ... then er … we have already asked about a manager within (dalam) an organization, the difference between a manager and a non-manager, … and also ... actually what ... is the role of a manager within (di dalam) an organization?

B: Yes. The role of a manager as – within (di dalam) an organization, is also as a planner’ (S/E-TUTO)

Here, dalam appears as the first mention, and di dalam as the second and third, all referring to the same abstract Trajector and Landmark (the role of a manager in an organization). The first and second mentions are by the same speaker, while the third is by a different speaker. I have already pointed out earlier in this study that order of mention does not seem to determine selection. The choice of two different forms by speaker A does not appear to imply any difference in construal or manner of speech (e.g. to give emphasis). Moreover, there does not seem to be any apparent reason either why speaker B selects the compound form. In cases such as this, it seems that the alternation serves as an avoidance of speech monotony.

Another case in point is shown in the occurrence of dalam in (103), repeated from (99a), where similar Landmark (an enclosure) is referred to in (104) with the compound form di dalam. Here too, neither semantic nor pragmatic difference can be observed between the two forms.

(106) Kalau mau lebih awet, sayuran dan buah dapat di-bungkus if want more lasting vegetable and fruit can PASS-wrap

plastik sebelum di-simpan pada kotak paling bawah dalam kulkas. plastic before PASS-store LOC box most low LOC fridge ‘If (you) want (vegetables and fruit) to last longer, vegetables and fruit can be

wrapped in plastic before storing in (dalam) the lowest compartment in the fridge.’ (W/P-MENY)

(107) Jangan-lah menyimpan sayuran dan buah pada bagian yang NEG-IMP-EMP store vegetable and fruit LOC part REL

terlalu dingin di dalam freezer atau chiller. too cold LOC inside freezer or chiller ‘Do not store vegetables and fruit in a place which is too cold inside

(di dalam) the freezer or chiller.’ (W/P-MENY)

The preceding examples show that dalam and di dalam are not totally synonymous, contrary to what has been implied by previous studies. The distinction between the two is either semantic (e.g. temporal use) or pragmatic (e.g. to give emphasis). Synonymy is observed only in cases where speakers use the two forms alternatingly to refer to the same referent(s), for the purpose of avoiding repetitive mentioning of the same preposition.


5.6.2 Dalam and ke dalam

The claim that dalam is a short form of di dalam, as has been shown, is only partially correct. Apart from what has already been pointed out above, there is another reason why the claim is unwarranted, and that is, that it fails to recognize that dalam is sometimes used not only as a short form of di dalam but also of ke dalam ‘into’, to indicate a dynamic relation. Moreover, all of the three forms can also occur in alternation to suggest the same relation. In the examples shown below, the alternation also suggests an avoidance of repetition.

The alternating use of dalam and ke dalam can be seen in (108), taken from a linguistic lecture on dialectology. Both forms, in this case, refer to the same Trajector and Landmark.

(108) ... data kebahasaan … yang ada ... di sini data linguistic REL be LOC here

… itu satu persatu di-masukkan ke dalam peta. that one by.one PASS-put.inside DIR inside map

(10 IUs intervene)

Jadi paling sedikit ada limabelas ... peta ... leksikal. … Ya kan? so most few be fifteen map lexical yes TAG

… Nah … setelah ... kelimabelas ini so after the.fifteen this

... semua di-masukkan dalam peta, all PASS-put.inside LOC map ‘the linguistic data we have here is entered one by one into (ke dalam) the map.’

‘So there are at least fifteen … lexical maps. … Right? … So … after ... these fifteen ... are all entered into (dalam) the map,’ (S/P-DIAL)

Alternatively, the two forms may be used for different Landmarks by two different speakers, as shown in the example from a cooking show in (109). Here speaker T is showing speaker I how to make sangkaya ‘coconut custard’ (mentioned in the preceding discourse). Dalam (used by speaker T) refers to the hollow part of the pumpkin, whereas di dalam (used by speaker I) refers to the submersion of the pumpkin in lime water. Both of these configurations are expressible by dalam alone (more specifically, Dalam1 and Dalam3, respectively), so that in principle there is no need for the compound form.

(109) T: Nanti kemudian later then

... kita masukkan dalam labu kuning tadi ... lalu di-kukus 1Sg put.in LOC gourd yellow before then PASS-steam

... sampai mateng. until cooked

(9 IUs intervene)

I: Jadi ini labu-nya sudah di – so this gourd-DEF PERF PASS-

204 Chapter 5

masukkan ke dalam ... air kapur sirih ya. put.in DIR inside water lime sirih yes

T: ‘Later ... we put (the custard) into (dalam) the pumpkin ... then steam it ... until cooked.’

I: So the pumpkin has been put in (soaked in) (ke dalam) … sirih lime water, right?’ (S/P-RAMA)

One might be tempted to say that the difference in form reflects inter-speaker variability. However, without evidence from a larger volume of discourse data with multiple speakers such a claim is difficult to substantiate. In any case, the examples of alternation by the same speaker shown so far should provide sufficient evidence that alternation often has no other purpose than to avoid repetition. Notice in (104), which is taken from the same text as (109) with 7 intonation units intervening, that the same speaker T selects di dalam for a similar Landmark (i.e. an enclosure) with the same verbal base masuk ‘put into (some sort of enclosure)’. Di dalam, in this case, is used in a dynamic sense to mark the Goal, and is in this case synonymous with ke dalam.

(110) T: Nah ini ... kemudian kita masukkan di dalam kukusan. so this then 1Sg put.inside LOC inside steamer

T: ‘So here … then we put (the sangkaya-filled pumpkin) into a steamer.’ (S/P-RAMA)

These examples show that not only ke dalam, but also dalam and di dalam can occur in a dynamic context, and as such, the three can be used alternatingly even though either one alone would suffice. Below are more examples with ke dalam which can also be substituted with either dalam or di dalam.

(111) a. Selama musim hujan, semua semak-semak dan bahan-bahan pangkasan during season rain all shrub-RDP and material-RDP cutting

di-masukkan ke dalam lubang itu. PASS-put.inside DIR inside hole that ‘During the rainy season, all shrubs and cuttings are put inside the hole.’

b. Selama musim hujan, semua semak-semak dan bahan-bahan pangkasan dimasukkan dalam lubang itu.

c. Selama musim hujan, semua semak-semak dan bahan-bahan pangkasan dimasukkan di dalam lubang itu.

(112) a. Masukkan bibit tersebut ke dalam ikatan merang. put-in seed aforementioned DIR inside bundle straw ‘Put the seeds inside the straw bundle.’ (W/P-JAMU)

b. Masukkan bibit tersebut dalam ikatan merang.

c. Masukkan bibit tersebut di dalam ikatan merang.

An interesting question is whether the choice of form has anything to do with the medium. That is, whether the compound form is preferred in writing and the shorter in speech, as seems to be the case with di (see Chapter 3). At this point, this is not clear as no frequency comparison between dalam and the compound forms has been conducted.


However, if the view concerning the important role of medium and genre as maintained in this study indeed holds, then one can expect that the compound forms would appear more often in writing and in formal contexts, and less in speech, particularly in casual conversation.

In summary, the alternation between the simple and compound forms of dalam, either in static or dynamic contexts, is motivated by two pragmatic factors. One is related to the Gricean maxim of Manner, adapted by Levinson (1999:214) as the M-Principle, where the use of a compound version of dalam indicates a marked situation. That is, by the use of the marked form, the speaker wants to indicate something different from what is conveyed by the simple form (e.g. emphasizing a certain part of the discourse). The other factor is concerned with stylistic consideration. That is, the alternating use of dalam and its compound counterparts is done to avoid monotony that is potentially created by repetition. Both factors are functional in the sense that they fulfil the communicative needs of the speaker.

5.7 Genre, medium and the distribution of dalam

Among the three prepositions examined in this study, dalam is the least frequently used. From the total tokens of 1415 prepositions examined in this study, dalam constitutes only 14.98% (212 tokens). The comparison with the other two prepositions is shown in Figure 5.12.

Total tokens Percentage Di 905 64% Pada 298 21% Dalam 212 15% Total 1415 100%

Figure 5.12: Total tokens of all prepositions in all genres and mediums

This figure only includes the occurrences of dalam as a simple preposition and excludes its compound counterparts (e.g. di dalam ‘inside, into’,8 ke dalam ‘into’, dari dalam ‘from inside’). Its distribution by genre is shown in the table below.

Genre Total tokens Percentage Narrative 30 14.1% Expository 107 50.5% Procedural 75 35.4% Total tokens 212 100%

Figure 5.13: The distribution of dalam by genre

8 Di dalam is counted as di (compound preposition) in Chapter 3.

206 Chapter 5

Like di and pada, dalam is more frequently used in written discourse. If we examine the table below, where the distribution in the three genres is further broken down by medium, we can see that in all three genres, the frequency is higher in the written medium, although in expository discourse difference in the total number of tokens between the two mediums is not as great.

GENRE SPOKEN (Total tokens: 72)

WRITTEN (Total tokens: 140)

Narrative 2 28 Expository 48 59 Procedural 22 53

Figure 5.14: The distribution of dalam by genre and medium

Figure 5.15 shows the distribution by Landmark types. Two points are worth noting in this regard. The first is that no occurrence with human Landmarks is found, which accords with the point made earlier this chapter that dalam is not used to refer to the concrete representation of humans (the category ‘spatial (human)’ in Figure 5.15). When it is used to talk about humans, it is usually the abstract conception of humans (e.g. the self) or personification of abstract entities such as God that are referred to. In Figure 5.15, occurrences of this sort are classified as ‘abstract’. As mentioned, with the exception of Datang (1989), previous studies do mention this Landmark type, which suggests that it is not an important feature of dalam. The results in this study support the other studies in this respect.

The second point is that the highest number of occurrences is with abstract Landmarks, which total 144 tokens, while the totals of spatial (non-human) and temporal Landmarks are 54 and 14 tokens respectively. This result suggests that dalam is mostly used to encode abstract relations. However, this generalization holds only if we consider the data as a whole, irrespective of medium and genre. If we examine the distribution in more detail, it becomes clear that although in general abstract Landmarks are predominant, their distribution is affected by genre. The ensuing discussion elaborates on this point.




Nature of LM Spoken (total: 2)

Written (total: 28)

Spoken (total: 48)

Written (total: 59)

Spoken (total: 22)

Written (total: 53)

Spatial (human) - - - - - - Spatial (non- human)

- 3 3 6 9 33

Temporal 1 2 3 2 3 3 Abstract 1 23 42 51 10 17

Figure 5.15: The distribution of dalam by Landmark type


In narrative discourse, dalam only comprises 30 tokens (14.15%) of the total number of tokens, which is the lowest among the three genres. Of this total, only 2 are found in spoken narrative (which consists primarily of casual conversation), one is in temporal use, and the other in abstract use. This indicates that being semantically more specific than either di or pada, dalam is less favoured in casual conversation since relations expressible by dalam can be suitably and more economically conveyed by di, except in temporal use where di cannot suggest duration and in some of the abstract uses that are not paraphraseable with di.

In accordance with the overall use pattern of the three prepositions, dalam is more prevalent in writing. Its occurrence with abstract Landmarks, which is the highest among the Landmark types, reflects its general use pattern across genres. As mentioned, this pattern reflects a functional assignment, whereby a hyponymic term is predominantly assigned to abstract relations, while the superordinate term di is primarily assigned to spatial relations.

The chart below shows the distribution in this genre.

Distribution of Dalam in Narrative Discourse

0 01 1

0

32

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

spatial human spatial nonhuman temporal abstract

Landmark type

spokenwritten

Figure 5.16: The distribution of dalam in narrative discourse

The distribution pattern in expository discourse is similar to the narrative discourse but only in the sense that the highest occurrence is found in writing and with abstract Landmarks. In terms of medium, the two genres differ in that the frequency in the spoken and written in the expository discourse is relatively comparable, whereas a contrast can be seen in spoken and written narrative discourse. The comparable frequency in the expository discourse can be attributed to the general characteristics of this genre, namely, it is primarily about abstract concepts, and therefore medium has less of an effect on the distribution than in the narrative discourse. The distribution in this genre is shown in chart form below.

208 Chapter 5

Figure 5.17: The distribution of dalam in expository discourse

Procedural discourse is the only type of discourse (or genre) in which the highest occurrences are with spatial (non-human) Landmarks, which, given the overall characteristics of this genre, is not surprising. That is to say, because procedural discourse is essentially about giving instructions for performing certain tasks (e.g. putting things in a container or enclosure, how to teach a child to ride a bicycle), it generally involves spatial entities and a higher level of precision. From the chart in Figure 5.18 we can see that it in fact occurs nearly twice as frequently as with abstract Landmarks, which is contrary to the general use pattern of dalam.

Figure 5.18: The distribution of dalam in procedural discourse

As a summarizing point, it is worth noting that expository discourse, which has the highest frequency of abstract Landmarks, also has the highest number of tokens of all Landmark types, while the procedural discourse, which has the highest frequency of spatial Landmarks, has the second highest number of tokens from all Landmark types (see Figure


5.15). This result indicates that in terms of frequency, dalam as a preposition is used primarily in extended (abstract) senses to indicate such concepts as state, linear inclusion, and other abstract concepts, as already pointed out earlier, and only secondarily in spatial meanings. Narrative, on the other hand, is a little different from the other two genres in that it displays most strikingly the contrast in frequency between spoken and written discourse. The very small occurrence of dalam in spoken narrative discourse is possibly motivated by economy. That is to say, speakers would tend to opt for a morphologically simpler (shorter) but semantically more general preposition such as di, rather than a preposition that is more semantically specific.

5.8 Conclusion

As a spatial preposition, dalam is semantically more specific than di. This chapter has shown that the spatial meanings expressed lexically by dalam can be inferred pragmatically from the contexts of di. In other words, what constitutes conventionalized spatial meanings in dalam are pragmatically enriched interpretations in di. This overlap between meanings and inferences enables the interchangeability of the two prepositions in stereotypical spatial configurations and also enables dalam to be substituted for by the compound form di dalam. However, in non-stereotypical spatial configurations, where it is no longer possible to employ conventionalized inference to get the right layout, it is necessary to use the compound expression, and the alternative with di is not available.

The interchangeability between dalam and the other two prepositions does not always extend to non-spatial uses however. We saw that in abstract uses, only in those expressing part-whole relations, which are metaphorical extensions of the spatial part-whole use, can dalam be substituted for by either di or pada. These are uses in which dalam conveys the following meanings: ‘Activity X is part of the set of practises Y’ (Dalam10), ‘Feature X is part of linguistic concept Y’ (Dalam11), and ‘Position X is part of hierarchy Y’ (Dalam12).

The pattern of metaphorical extension in dalam contrasts with that in di in the sense that dalam, being the more semantically specific term, develops more extensions than di, which is the more general term. This finding runs counter to the generalization in English as proposed by Dirven (1993:85), namely that terms that are more general develop more extensions than the more specific ones. This pattern of extension is also reflected in the pattern of distribution by Landmark type, which shows that dalam occurs most often with abstract Landmarks, indicating that it is primarily used for abstract relations. This is in contrast with the distribution pattern of di, as shown in Chapter 3, which suggests that the predominant uses are spatial.

The contrast in distribution between dalam and di reflect a functional assignment where the more semantically general term tends to be assigned to the spatial domain, while the more semantically specific term tends to be assigned to the abstract domain. The assignment should not be thought of in absolute terms however, since some abstract uses of dalam can also be expressed by di. In a prototype analysis, this distinction would be most likely to be accounted for in terms of a difference in conceptual centers.

Considering that the predominant use of dalam is for conveying abstract relations, it is surprising that no discussion of abstract Landmarks is found in previous studies. The lack of discussion is even more surprising if one considers that such studies utilize data from written fictional narratives and written expository texts (see Chapter 1), which are two discourse types where abstract Landmarks occur most frequently. Moreover, we saw from

210 Chapter 5

the findings in this chapter that spatial Landmarks are most abundant in written procedural discourse, and yet this discourse type has not been included as data by such studies.

The lack of attention to the abstract uses of dalam seems to be a consequence of viewing this term primarily as a locational noun at the expense of its significance as a simple preposition. The failure to recognize abstract relations as the predominant use of dalam ultimately results in the confusion about how to distinguish this preposition from di or pada. Furthermore, the lack of attention to factors related to genre and medium means that preposition selection cannot be satisfactorily explained.

211

6 Conclusion

6.1 Summary of the study

The starting point for this study is the observation that the locative prepositions di, pada and dalam are interchangeable, that is, they can be substituted for one another, or used in alternation, for the same or closely similar referent without immediately apparent difference in meaning. This study has explored the questions as to what factors may motivate this interchangeability, and on what basis language users may choose one preposition over another.

I hope to have shown that interchangeability does not always suggest synonymy. Cases of substitution, that is, where one preposition can be substituted for by another, and the occurrence of multiple prepositions in nested constructions generally indicate semantic, pragmatic, or stylistic contrasts. Interchangeability is possible because of overlaps in the semantic range of the three prepositions. The only cases where di, pada, dalam and some compound forms (e.g. di dalam ‘inside’, ke dalam ‘into’) are synonymous are those where they are used in alternation for the same Trajector-Landmark configuration within the same stretch of discourse. These cases are generally motivated by the stylistic consideration of ‘elegant variation’. That is, by alternating a speaker can avoid monotony that is potentially created by repetition. Alternation, therefore, serves a functional purpose of fulfilling a speaker’s communicative need to convey her/his message in a certain manner. In this respect, alternation is not so much about what is in the message as how it is expressed.

This study began with the hypothesis that semantic similarities provide language users with alternatives for expressing the same situation, but preposition selection is often additionally guided by non-semantic factors. In terms of semantic structure, the distinction between di, pada and dalam, with the exception of the directional uses of pada, is mostly concerned with the generality/specificity contrast. It was shown that di is basically a general preposition. Although it is polysemous between spatial, abstract, and temporal meanings, it does not give specification in these meanings. Specific interpretations of its occurrences are arrived at through pragmatic principles that combine one’s knowledge of a word’s conventional meanings with extralinguistic knowledge to generate default inferences. The system of pragmatic principles, explicated in terms of Gricean heuristics, are useful in narrowing the possibilities of interpretations and identifying the distinction between prepositions in terms of implicatures.

212 Chapter 6

With the exception of the spatial directional use in pada, spatial relations expressed with pada and dalam can also, in general, be expressed with di. This is because the inferences generated by di subsume the specific meanings in pada and dalam. However, the details of the inferences in di and the meanings in pada and dalam are not identical. For example, even though di and pada can both occur with a human Landmark and human Trajector, they generate different implicatures (e.g. Dia tinggal di/pada anaknya ‘S/he lives with her/his daughter/son’, di associates the Landmark with a spatial location, whereas pada implicates that the human Landmark, and no one else, is the reference point for the human Trajector).

The spatial relations between the three prepositions are mapped out in Figure 6.1.

Di1: X occupies the same portion of space as Y Pada1: X is at place/position Y Pada2: X moves to place/position Y Dalam1: X is inside 3-DIM space Y Pada3: X is part of Y Dalam2: X inside 2-DIM space Y Pada4: X is with person Y Dalam3: X is below Y’s surface Pada5: Person X’s action or Dalam4: X is part of Y’s structure/composition mental processes are directed at Y

Figure 6.1: Semantic relations between di, pada and dalam

This study has shown that, although there is a great deal of overlap between di, pada and dalam in spatial uses, this overlap diminishes in non-spatial uses, evident in their non-substitutability in many cases, particularly in the case of di and dalam. Moreover, pada and dalam have more metaphorical extensions than di, which suggests that the more semantically specific prepositions develop more extensions than the general one. This finding stands in direct opposition to the pattern in English shown by Dirven (1993), in which terms with more general semantic content (e.g. ‘in’, ‘at’) exhibit more extensions than the more specific ones (e.g. ‘on’). The pattern of extension in di, pada and dalam can be accounted for in terms of a ‘functional assignment’, whereby the more general term is predominantly assigned to spatial relations, while the more specific ones tends to be reserved for abstract relations. With respect to pada, it is also possible that the pattern is a result of borrowing, that is, some of the abstract senses already existing in the original Sanskrit terms are transferred into Indonesian.

6.2 Concerning ‘locational/directional’ and ‘spatial/abstract’ distinction

Through the analysis of pada, this study has raised the issue concerning the relation between locational and directional meanings of a preposition. We have seen in the synchronic description of pada in Chapter 4 that both categories of meaning form equally important parts of its semantic range. The question is how to account for the seeming ‘split’ in the meanings. I have suggested that the directional meanings of pada are not simply elaborations of its locational meanings and that this seeming anomaly is explicable only if we take into consideration the historical development of this preposition from two different sources in Sanskrit that converge into a single preposition in Indonesian.

Conclusion 213

This study has also demonstrated that categories such as ‘spatial’ and ‘abstract’, which are commonly employed for distinguishing preposition use, are not always discrete, and in some cases, a distinction is not relevant for explaining prepositional meanings. For example, many instances of pada and dalam, e.g. Likopen pada/dalam tomat ‘Lycopene in tomato’, Di dalam tubuh yang sehat terdapat jiwa yang sehat ‘In a healthy body there is a healthy soul/mind’, fall somewhere in between the two categories as they have a concrete entity as the Landmark but an abstract entity as the Trajector. Moreover, the spatial/abstract distinction ceases to play a role in other cases. For example, the use of pada in the discourse about illnesses/diseases in humans represents both spatial and abstract cases but only suggests one lexicalized meaning, namely, ‘undesirable condition affecting humans’. I have suggested that this meaning is motivated by the conception that illnesses/diseases disrupt the wellbeing of humans, and not by whether the relations are spatial or abstract. Thus pragmatic enrichment plays an important role in semantic extension.

6.3 Semantic content, genre, medium, and preposition selection

The analysis of di, pada and dalam has shown that preposition choice is determined not only by semantic and pragmatic factors, but also by discourse-related factors such as genre, medium, and stylistic considerations, and with regard to pada, by historical factors. Throughout, this study has shown that prepositions are generally less preferred in speech, but the degree to which they are dispreferred is medium and genre specific.1 The findings suggest that the broad characteristics of a genre impact upon preposition use, such that certain prepositions seem to be more preferred than others in certain genres. For instance, di, being semantically general, is the most preferred preposition for casual contexts. In conversation among friends for example, there are 137 tokens of di, compared to only 1 of pada, and 2 of dalam. This frequency also suggests that there is a correlation between general semantic content and shared background, that is, in speech contexts where speech participants share common grounds (cf. Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986, Milroy 2001:274–275), a general preposition tends to be preferred, which also explains why the more specific prepositions, namely pada and dalam, tend to be used in types of discourse where participant relationship is distant (e.g. in expository discourse), or where there is a need to be explicit in describing relational configurations (e.g. in procedural discourse).

Although genre, medium, and stylistics may represent common variables in studies of lexical variation (e.g. Biber 1988, 1989, Macaulay 1990, Geeraerts et al. 1994, Eckert and Rickford 2001) and of the interface between speech and writing (e.g. Chafe 1982, Redeker 1984, Halliday 1985, Chafe and Danielewicz 1987, Chafe and Tannen 1987, Olson 1994), these factors have not been given sufficient attention in prepositional studies. Recent studies of prepositional meanings have been mostly concerned with the issue of polysemy and conceptualization (see e.g. various papers in Rudzka-Ostyn 1988 and Zelinsky-Wibbelt 1993, Casad 1996, Cuyckens et al. 2003) such that the question of preposition selection is largely dispensed with. Considering that prepositions are part of utterances, and utterances are essentially part of verbal interaction, it would make sense for a semantic analysis to incorporate pragmatic and discourse-related aspects of preposition use.

1 To the extent that this study is based on patterns of preposition use, it is complementary to the usage-

based approach described in Barlow and Kemmer (2000).

214 Chapter 6

6.4 Further research

Although there have been some interesting findings, some issues require further research. An example of such an issue is formality, which has been noted throughout this study as a significant aspect of preposition use but has been given a treatment that is far from being systematic. Apart from recognizing that formality is a matter of degree, an adequate definition or explication of this notion has not been offered.

A related issue is the question of relations between standard and colloquial varieties of Indonesian and preposition use, which is largely left unexplored. Recent studies on colloquial varieties of Indonesian (Sneddon 2001, Gil 2004) show that some prepositions, such as sama ‘with, to/toward’, is predominantly used in colloquial varieties. Although I have mentioned the intersubstitutability between sama and pada in Chapter 4 and noted the colloquial flavour of sama, a comparative treatment between the two prepositions beyond this brief mention has not been attempted. Yet, considering the complex relations between the standard and the colloquial, and the growing attention paid to the importance of the colloquial variety in the study of Indonesian (Sneddon 1990, 2001, 2002, 2003, Ewing 2005), such a study would be timely.

215

Data sources

1. Corpus data

Spoken narrative texts

S/N ENDA Spoken narrative text: a casual conversation between four friends. Recorded in Melbourne, Australia, 14 February 1998. Length: 3132 words.

S/N-BALI Spoken narrative text: a conversation between four family members. Recorded in Bali, Indonesia, 7 December 1997. Length: 1129 words.

S/N-ENTO2 Spoken narrative text: a casual conversation between four friends. Recorded in Melbourne, Australia, 14 February 1998. Length: 585 words.

ME/I-107 Spoken narrative text: casual conversation between three friends. Data courtesy of Michael Ewing. Length: 3180 words.

S/N-RETN Spoken narrative text: a conversation between two friends. Recorded in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2 December 1997. Length: 677 words.

S/N-SILK Spoken narrative text: a casual conversation between three family members. Recorded in Jakarta, 4 January 1998. Length: 1297 words.

Written narrative texts

W/N-CALO Written narrative text: a short story. Thahar, Harris Effendi. 1997. Calon Kuat. In Harian Kompas. Anjing-Anjing Menyerbu Kuburan: Cerpen Pilihan Kompas 1997. Jakarta: Gramedia, pp.90–95. Length: 1472 words.

W/N-KUAL Written narrative text: a personal account from a regular rubric in a women’s magazine. Indrastuti, Dian. 1998. Kualat. Femina 1/XXVI, pp.35–36. Length: 1270 words.

W/N-PRIY Written narrative text: excerpt from a novel. Kayam, Umar. 1992. Para Priyayi. Jakarta: Grafiti, pp.9–23. Length: 4669 words.

W/N-UNDA Written narrative text: a personal account from a regular rubric in a women’s magazine. Fauriza, Endah. 1996. Undangan. Femina 22/XXIV, p.37. Length: 656 words, including title.

216 Data sources

W/N-WANI Written narrative text: a short story. Ajidarma, Seno Gumira. 1995. Seorang Wanita Di Sebuah Loteng. In Ajidarma, Seno Gumira. Dilarang Menyanyi Di Kamar Mandi: Kumpulan Cerpen. Jakarta: Subentra Citra Pustaka, pp.123–132. Length: 1933 words.

Spoken expository texts

S/E-PMKI Spoken expository text: a face-to-face lecture on contemporary Indonesian poetry. Recorded at the Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, 21 November 1997. Length: 5640 words.

S/E-PROSP Spoken expository text: a distant university lecture on the topic of the development of entrepreneurial skills. Radio broadcast, Radio ARH, Jakarta, Indonesia, 18 February 1997. Length: 1517 words.

S/E-TUTO Spoken expository text: a distant university lecture on the topic of business management. Radio broadcast, Pro1-FM, Jakarta, Indonesia, 17 December 1997. Length: 2844 words.

Written expository texts

W/E-ANAK Written expository text: an article from a parenting magazine. Akbar Hawadi, Reni. 1996. Bila si Kecil Seorang Anak Berbakat. Ayahbunda 14, pp.76–77. Length: 1519 words.

W/E-DAMP Written expository text: a newspaper article. Mangunnegoro, Hadiarto. Dampak dan Antisipasi Bencana Asap. Kompas Minggu, 21 December 1997, p. 15. Length: 1192 words.

W/E-MARS Written expository text: an editorial from a women’s tabloid. Atmowiloto, Arswendo. Pentas Marsinah Menggugat Lewat Jalur Cepat: Catatan Arswendo Atmowiloto. Aura 47, December 1997, p.07B. Length: 772 words.

W/E-MOBN Written expository text: a magazine article. Nur Wanto, C.N. 1997. Sekali Lagi … Kontroversi Mobil Nasional. Economica 32, pp.44–45. Length: 967 words.

W/E-MUSI Written expository text: an automotive magazine editorial. Musibah Hanum-Ferry Semoga Jangan Lagi. Otomotif 15/VII, 18 August 1997, p.2. Length: 387 words.

W/E-NASI Written expository text: a magazine article. 1996. Nasi Tumpeng: Sajian Simbolis Tradisional yang Sarat Makna. Selera No. 6/XV, page no. unknown. Length: 1286 words.

W/E-PELE Written expository text: a web article. Sumardja, Effendi A. Date unknown. Pelestarian Kawasan Pesisir dan Lautan Melalui Gerakan Pembudidayaan Mangrove dan Pemasangan Terumbu Buatan (Rumpon). www.bapedal.go.id/berita/atensi/pesisir.html. Length: 2426 words.

Data sources 217

W/E-TELE Written expository text: an article from a web version of a tabloid. Wardhana, Veven Sp. Telenovela Ind(ones)ia. www.detik.com, 4 February 00. Length: 868 words.

W/E-TOMA Written expository text: a newspaper article. Afriansyah, Nurfi. Tomat dan Serangan Jantung. Kompas, 18 January 1998, p.13. Length: 586 words.

Spoken procedural texts

S/P-AROM Spoken procedural text: a segment from a television cooking show. ‘Aroma’, Indosiar Television, 3 January 1998. Length: 866 words.

S/P-BAGA Spoken procedural text: a short segment from a television automotive show, showing how to attach an extra luggage compartment on a car. ‘Roda’, Indosiar Television, 17 January 1998. Length: 447 words.

S/P-DIAL Spoken procedural text: an instruction on how to do a take-home exam on dialectology (e.g. how to do a dialect map, how to submit the paper, what to do if there are problems with the exam paper), delivered within the context of a face-to-face lecture. Recorded at the Faculty of Arts, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, 11 December 1997. Length: 3045 words.

S/P-FAX Spoken procedural text: a segment from a university radio broadcast on how to send free faxes on the computer. ‘Era Komputer’, Radio ARH, Jakarta, 16 December 1997. Length: 902 words.

S/P-RAMA Spoken procedural text: a segment from a television cooking show. ‘Hidangan Ramadhan’, Indosiar Television, 7 January 1998. Length: 2902 words.

S/P-RUDI Spoken procedural text: a segment from a television cooking show. ‘Selera Nusantara’, hosted by Rudi Choiruddin, with two invited guests, RCTI Television. Broadcast on 10 January 1998. Length: 1699 words.

S/P-SIRI Spoken procedural text: a short segment from a television lifestyle show, showing how to propagate a house plant. ‘Jelita’, Indosiar Television, 27 December 1997. Length: 139 words.

Written procedural texts

W/P-5LAN Written procedural text: an article from a parenting magazine on how to teach children to ride a bicycle. 1992. 5 Langkah Belajar Naik Sepeda. Ayahbunda 10, pp.36–37. Length: 492 words.

W/P-ANTA Written procedural text: an instruction from a lifestyle tabloid on how to package plants as gifts. Mengemas Antaran Tanaman. Nova 512/X, 14 December 1997, pp.30–31. Length: 347 words.

W/P-BLUS Written procedural text: a dressmaking instruction from a women’s magazine. 1997. Blus & Blus. Femina 14/XXV (‘Mode & Pola’ Supplement). Length: 346 words.

218 Data sources

W/P-CARA Written procedural text: an instruction from an online version of a magazine on how to choose walking shoes. Cara Tepat Memilih Sepatu Jalan. [email protected], 17 August 1999. Length: 338 words.

W/P-DAUN Written procedural text: an instruction on napkin folding from a lifestyle tabloid. 1997. Lipatan Daun untuk Centerpiece Meja Hidang. Nova 511/X, 7 December 1997, p.XV. Length: 442 words.

W/P-JAMU Written procedural text: a chapter of a book on how to grow mushrooms. Sinaga, Meity. 1990. Jamur Merang dan Budidayanya. Jakarta: Penebar Swadaya, pp.72–77. Length: 466 words.

W/P-KART Written procedural text: a computer magazine article on how to create name cards. Sofyan, Yayan MS. 1997. Kartu Nama dengan Microsoft Word. Info Komputer 11/XI, p. 125. Length: 543 words.

W/P-KOI Written procedural text: an article from a hobby magazine on how to treat a sick goldfish. Untung, Onny. 1997. Mengobati Koi yang Luka. Trubus 335/XXVIII, pp.34–35. Length: 765 words.

W/P-LANG Written procedural text: an instruction from an online version of a magazine on how to select and drink jamu (traditional herbal medicine). No author’s name. Langkah Jitu Minum Jamu. [email protected], 12 September 1999. Length: 271 words.

W/P-LATI Written procedural text: an instruction from an online version of a magazine on how to do breathing exercises to overcome insomnia. Latihan Napas Atasi Sulit Tidur. [email protected], 26 April 1999. Length: 238 words.

W/P-MENY Written procedural text: an instruction from an online version of a magazine on how to store food in the fridge. Menyimpan Makanan di Kulkas. [email protected], 20 August 1999. Length: 265 words.

W/P-OLAH Written procedural text: an article from a women’s magazine on how to do exercises with a toddler. 1997. Olahraga Bersama Balita. Kartini 614 (Supplement), pp.4–5. Length: 489 words.

W/P-PUTR Written procedural text: a recipe from a cookbook. Yasa Boga. 1997. Putri Mandi. In Yasa Boga. Kue-Kue Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, pp.44–45. Length: 236 words.

W/P-SERB Written procedural text: an instruction on napkin folding from a culinary magazine. 1996. Tiga Gaya Lipatan Serbet. Selera 6/XV, pp.60–61. Length: 275 words.

W/P-SOKB Written procedural text: an instruction from an automotive tabloid on how to install shock absorbers. Pasang Sendiri Sokbreker Tunggal. Otomotif 37/VII, 19 January 1997, p.18. Length: 440 words.

W/P-TIPS Written procedural text: tips from a magazine on how to buy a secondhand car. 1999. Tips Membeli Mobil Bekas. Warta Konsumen 2/XXV (page no. unknown). Length: 554 words.

Data sources 219

W/P-TOOL Written procedural text: an instruction on how to maintain car tool kits from an automotive tabloid. Cara Merawat Tool Kit. Otomotif 33/VII, 22 December 1997, p.17. Length: 261 words.

W/P-YOGA Written procedural text: an instruction from a women’s magazine on how to do yoga to minimize period pain. No author’s name. 1997. Senam Yoga Meredam Nyeri Haid. Femina Ekstra 14/XXV, pp.6–13. Length: 1170 words.

2. Additional written data

Ajidarma, Seno Gumira, 1995, Dilarang Menyanyi di Kamar Mandi: Kumpulan Cerpen. Jakarta: PT Subentra Citra Pustaka.

Charlie, Lie, 1999, Bahasa Indonesia Yang Baik dan Gimana Gitu…. Jakarta: Gramedia. Danandjaja, James, 1984, Folklor Indonesia: Ilmu Gosip, Dongeng, dan Lain-Lain.

Jakarta: Grafiti. Echols, John. M. and Hassan Shadily, 1990, Kamus Indonesia-Inggris. 3rd edn. Jakarta:

Gramedia. Kridalaksana, Harimurti, 1986, Kelas Kata dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia. Marahimin, Hiang and Ross Djalil, 1983, Masakan dan Kue Indonesia. Jakarta: Gaya

Favorit Press. Moeliono, Anton, 1989, Beberapa segi standardisasi tata bahasa. In Moeliono, Anton.

Kembara Bahasa: Kumpulan Karangan Tersebar. Jakarta, Gramedia, 113–123. Murbandono, L., 1982, Membuat Kompos. Jakarta: Penebar Swadaya. Proudfoot, I., 1990, Concordance to Hikayat Inderaputera: a complete Lemmatized

Concordance with Indexes and Frequency Tables. The Australian National University: Malay Concordance Project.

Tohari, Ahmad, 1985, Lintang Kemukus Dini Hari. Jakarta: Gramedia. ——, 1982, Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk: Catatan Buat Emak. Jakarta: Gramedia. Tim Penyusun Kamus, 1988, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Data on the discourse about human health: http://www.kompas.com/health/consultation Malay data: Malay Concordance Project (MCP)

http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/ahcen/proudfoot/MCP/ypukat.pl This database contains 57 Malay texts of varying length, written between 1300 and 1910.

220

Appendix

The meanings of di:

Di1: X occupies the same portion of physical space as Y Di2: Event X happens at the same time as time Y Di3: Abstract concept X is associated with physical/abstract space Y

The meanings of pada:

Pada1: X is at place/position Y Pada2: X is part of Y Pada3: X is associated with person Y Pada4: X is oriented toward Y Pada5: Person X’s action/mental process is directed at person Y Pada6: X is at abstract concept Y Pada7: Characteristic/condition X is associated with person Y Pada8: Activity X is part of abstract concept Y Pada9: Abstract entity X is part of entity Y Pada10: Mental processes X are directed at abstract concept Y Pada11: Event X happens at the same time as time Y

The meanings of dalam:

Dalam1: X is inside three-dimensional space Y Dalam2: X is inside two-dimensional space Y Dalam3: X is below the Y’s surface Dalam4: X is part of Y’s structure/composition Dalam5: X is in state Y Dalam6: X is in grouping/category Y Dalam7: X is in the sense/context of Y Dalam8: X occurs during activity Y Dalam9: X is within abstract linear space Y Dalam10: Activity X is part of the set of practises Y Dalam11: Feature X is part of linguistic concept Y Dalam12: Position X is part of hierarchy Y Dalam13: Event X occurs some time during time span Y Dalam14: Event X pertains during time span Y

221

References

Abas, Husen, 1987, Indonesian as a unifying language of wider communication: a historical and sociolinguistic perspective. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Adelaar, K. Alexander, 1992, Proto Malayic: the reconstruction of its phonology and parts of its lexicon and morphology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

—— 2005, Much ado about di-. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 161–1:127–142.

Akinaso, F.N., 1982, On the differences between spoken and written language. Language and Speech 25–2:97–125.

Alieva, N.F., V.D. Arakin, A.K. Ogloblin and Y.H. Sirk, 1991, Bahasa Indonesia: deskripsi dan teori. Transl. by V.I. Peckurov. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius.

Allwood, Jens, 2003, Meaning potentials and context: some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, John Taylor and René Dirven, eds Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–65.

Anderson, John M., 1971, The grammar of case: towards a localistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer, eds, 2000, Usage-based models of language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.

Bavin, Edith L., 1990, Locative terms and Warlpiri acquisition. Journal of Child Language 17:43–66.

—— 1992, The acquisition of Warlpiri. In Dan I. Slobin, ed. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 3. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Behrens, Leila, 2000, Aspects of polysemy. STUF 53–1:21–38. Bhatia, Vijay K., 1993, Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. London:

Longman. Biber, Douglas, 1988, Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. —— 1989, A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27:3–43. Blust, Robert, 1989, A note on semantic cycles in historical change. Diachronica

VI-2:297–300. —— 1997, Semantic change and the conceptualization of spatial relationships in

Austronesian languages. In Gunther Senft, ed. Referring to space: studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages, 39–51. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

222 References

Bolinger, Dwight, 1975, Aspects of language. 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bowden, John, 1991, Behind the preposition: grammaticalization of locatives in Oceanic languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Bowerman, Melissa, 1996, Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguistic perspective. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Michelle F. Garrett, eds Language and space, 385–436. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

Britton, Bruce K. and J.B. Black, eds, 1985, Understanding expository text: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brooks, Cleanth and Robert Penn Warren, 1970 [1949], Modern rhetoric. 3rd edn. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Brugman, Claudia, 1988 [1981], The story of over: polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.

Brugman, Claudia and Monica Macaulay, 1986, Interacting semantic systems: Mixtec expressions of location. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Carter, Ronald and Sandra Cornbleet, 2001, The language of speech and writing. London: Routledge.

Casad, Eugene, ed., 1996, Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chaer, Abdul, 1990, Penggunaan preposisi dan konjungsi Bahasa Indonesia. Ende: Penerbit Nusa Indah.

Chafe, Wallace, 1982, Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen, ed. Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

—— 1990, Some things that narratives tell us about the mind. In B.K. Britton and A.D. Pellegrini, eds Narrative thought and narrative language, 79–98. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chafe, Wallace and Jane Danielewicz, 1987, Properties of spoken and written language. In Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels, eds Comprehending oral and written language, 83–113. San Diego: Academic Press.

Chafe, Wallace and Deborah Tannen, 1987, The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology 16:383–407.

Choi, Soonja and Melissa Bowerman, 1991, Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41:83–121.

Clark, Eve V., 1978, Locationals: existentials, locative, and possessive constructions. In Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. Universals of human language vol. 4: syntax, 85–126. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

—— 1985, The acquisition of Romance. In Dan Slobin, ed. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 1: the data. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References 223

Clark, Herbert H., 1973, Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T.E. Moore, ed. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 27–63. New York: Academic Press.

—— 1996, Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Herbert H. and Diane Wilkes Gibbs, 1986, Referring as a collaborative process.

Cognition 22, 1–39. Croft, William, 1998, Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive

Linguistics 9–2, 151–173. Cruse, D. Alan, 1986, Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cumming, Susanna, 2002, On –in. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of

Austronesian Linguistics, The Australian National University, Canberra. Cumming, Susanna and T. Ono, 1997, Discourse as structure and process. In T. Van Dijk,

ed. 112–137. London: Sage. Cuyckens, Hubert, 1993, The Dutch spatial preposition ‘in’: a cognitive-semantic analysis.

In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, ed. The semantics of prepositions: from mental processing to natural language processing, 27–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

—— 1995, Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions door and langs. Cognitive Linguistics 6-2/3:183–207.

Cuyckens, Hubert, Soteria Svorou, Walter de Mulder and Gunther Radden, 2000, Write-up of the discussions from the workshop on ‘Prepositions, adpositions, and other grams’, 6th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Stockholm, 1999. [email protected], 7 April 2000.

Cuyckens, Hubert, John Taylor and René Dirven, eds, 2003, Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono, 1976, Sentence patterns of Indonesian. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii.

—— 2000, Echa: kisah pemerolehan Bahasa Anak Indonesia. Jakarta: Unika Atma Jaya. Datang, Frans Asisi, 1989, Konstruksi preposisional Bahasa Indonesia dan perilaku

semantis-sintaktis preposisi dalam konstruksi preposisional. Sarjana thesis, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Indonesia.

De Casparis, J.G., ed., 1997, Sanskrit loan-words in Indonesian: an annotated check-list of words from Sanskrit in Indonesian and Traditional Malay. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA.

Delbecque, Nicole, 1995, Towards a cognitive account of the use of the prepositions por and para in Spanish. In Eugene Casad, ed. Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 249–318. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Dewell, Robert B., 1994, Over again: image-schematic transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5:351–380.

Dirven, René, 1993, Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, ed. The semantics of prepositions: from mental processing to natural language processing, 73–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

224 References

Eckert, Penny and John R. Rickford, eds, 2001, Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Effendi, S. and B. Aritonang, 1993, Preposisi dan frase berpreposisi. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Eggins, Suzanne and Diana Slade, 1997, Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. Emmott, Catherine, 1997, Narrative comprehension: a discourse perspective. Oxford:

Clarendon Press. Enfield, Nick, 2000, Linguistic epidemiology: On the polyfunctionality of ‘acquire’ in

Mainland Southeast Asia. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Melbourne.

Evans, Nicholas and David Wilkins, 1996, The inside story of under: a strange case of polysemy in Australian languages. Paper presented at the Department of Linguistics, La Trobe University.

—— 2000, In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76–3:546–592.

Ewing, Michael, 2005, Colloquial Indonesian. In Alexander K. Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann, eds The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 227–258. London: Routledge.

Fillmore, Charles J., 1975, Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

—— 1977, Topics in lexical semantics. In Robert W. Cole, ed. Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 76–138.

Fox, Barbara, 1987, Discourse structure and anaphora: written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frawley, William, 1992, Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garrod, Simon and A. Anderson, 1987, Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in

conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition 27:181–218. Garrod, Simon and G. Doherty, 1994, Conversation, co-ordination and convention: an

empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition 53:181–215.

Geeraerts, Dirk, 1988, Where does prototypicality come from? In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed. Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

—— 1993, Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4–3:223–272. —— 1992, The semantic structure of Dutch over. Leuvense Bijdragen 81:205–230. —— Stefan Grondelaers, and Peter Bakema, 1994, The structure of lexical variation:

meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Geiger, Richard A. and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds, 1993, Conceptualizations and mental

processing in language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gil, David, 1994, The structure of Riau Indonesian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 17:179–

200. —— 1999, Review of Gunther Senft, ed., Referring to space: studies in Austronesian and

Papuan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38–2:421–429.

References 225

—— 2004, Riau Indonesian sama: explorations in macrofunctionality. In Martin Haspelmath, ed. Coordinating constructions, 371–424. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goddard, Cliff, 1994, Semantic theory and semantic universals. In Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka, eds Semantic and lexical universals: theory and empirical findings, 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

—— 1998, Semantic analysis: a practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— 2002, On and on: verbal explications for a polysemic network. Cognitive Linguistics

13–3:277–294. Goldberg, Adele, 1995, A construction grammar approach to argument structure.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gonda, J., 1952, Sanskrit in Indonesia. Nagpur, India: International Academy of Indian

Culture. Goody, Jack, 1987, The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Goody, Jack and Ian Watt, 1972 [1963], The consequences of literacy. In Paolo P.Giglioli,

ed. Language and social context, 311–357. London: Penguin. Graesser, Arthur C. and Sharon M. Goodman, 1985, Implicit knowledge, question

answering, and the representation of expository text. In Bruce K. Britton and J.B. Black, eds Understanding expository text: a theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text, 109–171. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grice, Paul H., 1989, Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Haiman, John, 1985, Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halim, Amran, 1981, Intonation in relation to syntax in Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific

Linguistics. Halliday, M.A.K., 1985, Spoken and written language. Melbourne: Deakin University. Hartmann, R.R.K., 1996, Contrastive typology and corpus linguistics: on the value of

parallel texts. Language Sciences 18–3/4, 947–957. Heine, Bernd, 1997, Cognitive foundation of grammar. New York: Oxford University

Press. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi and Friederike Hünnemeyer, 1991, Grammaticalization: a

conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herkovits, A., 1986, Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Hopper, Paul. J. and Sandra A. Thompson, 1980, Transitivity in grammar and discourse.

Language 56:251–299. —— and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, 2003, Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Horne, Elinor Clark, 1974, Javanese-English dictionary. New Haven: Yale University

Press. Jackendoff, Ray, 1983, Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. —— 1990, Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

226 References

Jackendoff, Ray and Barbara Landau, 1992, Spatial language and spatial cognition. In Ray Jackendoff. Languages of the mind: essays on mental representation, 99–124. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

Janssen, Theo A.J.M., 2003, Monosemy versus polysemy. In Hubert Cuyckens, John Taylor, and René Dirven, eds Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 93–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jones, Russell, 1984, Loan-words in contemporary Indonesian. In J.W.M. Verhaar, ed. Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: preliminary studies, part II. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA.

Kane, Thomas S., 1988, The new Oxford guide to writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaswanti Purwo, Bambang, 1997, Ihwal bahasa tak baku. Plenary paper presented at the National Linguistic Congress of the Indonesian Linguistic Society, Surabaya.

Keller, Rudi, 1994, On language change: the invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.

—— 1998, A theory of linguistic signs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kinneavy, James L., 1971, A theory of discourse: the aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Jahandari, Khosrow, 1999, Spoken and written discourse: a multi-disciplinary perspective.

Stamford: Ablex. Kreitzer, Anatol, 1997, Multiple levels of schematization: a study in the conceptualization

of space. Cognitive Linguistics 8–4:291–325. Lakoff, George, 1987, Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about

the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald. W., 1987, Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: theoretical

prerequisites. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. —— 1991, Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter. —— 1993, Universals of construal. Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the

Berkeley Linguistics Society, 447–463. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Lapoliwa, Hans, 1992, Frase preposisi dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan

dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Levinson, Stephen. C., 1983, Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1992, Activity types and language. In Paul Drew and J. Heritage, eds Talk at work:

interaction in institutional settings, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1994, Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and

object description. Linguistics 32:791–855. —— 1995, Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer, ed. Grammar and meaning, 90–115.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— 1997, From outer to inner space. In Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson, eds Language and

conceptualization, 13–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 227

—— 1999, H.P. Grice on location on Rossel Island. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 210–224. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

—— 2000, Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Lewis, David, 2002 [1969], Convention: a philosophical study. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Li, Chuan Siu, 1976, Essentials of Indonesian grammar. Sydney: Pustaka Malindo. Lichtenberk, Frantisek, 1991, Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization.

Language 67–3:475–509. Lindner, Sue, 1981, A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with

‘up’ and ‘out’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Longacre, Robert E., 1976, An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder. —— 1983, A grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press. Lyons, John, 1977, Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macaulay, Marcia, 1990, Processing varieties in English: an examination of oral and

written speech across genres. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Marmaridou, Sophia S.A., 2000, Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins. Martin, J.R., 1983, On the analysis of exposition. In Ruqaiya Hasan, ed. Discourse on

discourse: workshop reports from the Macquarie workshop on discourse analysis, 61–92. Wollongong: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

—— 1992, English text: system and structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miller, George. A. and Phillip N. Johnson-Laird, 1976, Language and perception.

Cambridge, Massachussetts: Belknap Press. Miller, Jim and Regina Weinart, 1998, Spontaneous spoken language: syntax and

discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mills, Carol B., Virginia A. Diehl, Deborah P. Birkmire and Lien-Chong Mou, 1993,

Procedural text: predictions of importance ratings and recall by models of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes 16:279–315.

—— 1995, Reading procedural texts: effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models. Discourse Processes 20:79–107.

Milroy, Lesley, 2001, Conversation, spoken language, and social identity. In P. Eckert and J.R. Rickford, eds Style and sociolinguistic variation, 268–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mithun, Marianne, 1985, When speakers write. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 259–272. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Moeliono, Anton M., 1986, Language development and cultivation: alternative approaches in language planning. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Moeliono, Anton M. and Soenjono Dardjowidjojo, eds, 1988, Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

228 References

Monier-Williams, Sir Monier, 1993 [1899], A Sanskrit-English dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Muhadjir, B.A. Nazief, M.A. Adriani, K. Mangkudilaga and Multamia Lauder, 1996, Frekuensi Kosakata Bahasa Indonesia. Depok: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia.

Muslim, Umar, 1999, Akan. Paper presented at the Victorian Southeast Asian Linguistics Symposium, University of Melbourne.

Norman, D.A. and D.G. Bobrow, 1979, Descriptions: an intermediate stage in memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology 11:107–123.

Nunberg, Geoffrey, 1979, The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3–2:143–184.

O’Dowd, Elizabeth M., 1998, Prepositions and particles in English: a discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ochs, Elinor, 1979, Planned and unplanned discourse. In Talmy Givon, ed. Syntax and semantics, vol. 12: discourse and syntax, 51–80. New York: Academic Press.

—— 1997, Narrative. In Teun A. van Dijk, ed. Discourse as structure and process, 185–207. London: Sage.

Olson, David R., 1994, The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, Brian, 1997, Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Payne, Thomas E., 1997, Describing morphosyntax: a guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Ronald D. Huddleston, 2002, Prepositions and preposition phrases. In Ronald D. Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 597–661. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, 1985, A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Rafferty, Ellen, 1982, Discourse structures of the Chinese Indonesian of Malang. Jakarta: NUSA.

Ramlan, M., 1980, Kata Depan atau Preposisi Dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Yogyakarta: U.P. Karyono.

Redeker, Gisela, 1984, On the differences between spoken and written language. Discourse Processes 7:43–55.

Roolvink, Roelof, 1948, De Voorzetserls in Klassiek en Modern Maleis. Dokkum: Firma Kamminga.

Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, ed. 1988, Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ruhl, Charles, 1989, On Monosemy: a study of linguistic semantics. Stony Brook: State University of New York Press.

Sandra, Dominiek, 1998, What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: a reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9–4:361–378.

References 229

Sandra, Dominiek and Sally Rice, 1995, Network analyses of prepositional meaning: mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6–1:89–130.

Sanford, Anthony J. and Linda M. Moxley, 1995, Aspects of coherence in written language: a psychological perspective. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Talmy Givon, eds Coherence in spontaneous text, 161–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sanford, Anthony J. and Simon C. Garrod, 1981, Understanding written language: explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Schegloff, Emmanuel A., 1972, Notes on a conversational practise: formulating place. In Paolo P. Giglioli, ed. Language and social context, 95–135. London: Penguin.

Schultze, Rainer, 1991, Getting round to (a)round: towards the description and analysis of a ‘spatial’ predicate. In Gisa Rauh, ed. Approaches to prepositions, 253–274. Tübingen: Gunter Naar.

—— 1993, The meaning of (a)round: a study of an English preposition. In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, eds Conceptualizations and mental processing in language, 399–431. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Senft, Gunther, ed. 1997, Referring to space: studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sinha, Chris and Tania Kuteva, 1995, Distributed spatial semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18:67–99.

Slametmuljana, 1957, Kaidah Bahasa Indonesia II. Jakarta: Penerbit Djambatan. Sneddon, James N., 1990, Directions in Indonesian-language teaching: formal, informal

or both? Asian Studies Review 11–2:94–100. —— 1996, Indonesian reference grammar. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. —— 2001, Teaching informal Indonesian: some factors for consideration. Australian

Review of Applied Linguistics 24–2:81–95. —— 2002, Variation in informal Jakartan Indonesian: a quantitative study. Linguistik

Indonesia 20–2:127–157. —— 2003, The Indonesian language: its history and role in modern society. Sydney:

University of New South Wales Press. Svorou, Soteria, 1994, The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Talmy, Leonard, 1983, How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick. Jr and

Linda P. Acredolo, eds Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application, 225–281. New York: Plenum Press.

—— 1985, Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen, ed. Language typology and syntactic description: grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 1988, The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed. Topics in cognitive linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Taylor, John R., 1988, Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed. Topics in cognitive linguistics, 299–326.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

230 References

—— 1989, Linguistic categorization: prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

—— 1993, Prepositions: patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt, ed. The semantics of prepositions: from mental processing to natural language processing, 151–175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

—— 2002, Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tim Penyusun Balai Bahasa Yogyakarta, 2001, Kamus Bahasa Jawa (Bausastra Jawa).

Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius. Tim Penyusun Kamus, 1988, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1975, Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing:

a contribution to the study of semantic fields. Semiotica 15–3:207–230. Tuggy, David, 1993, Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics

4–3:273–290. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans, 2003, The semantics of English prepositions: spatial

scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van den Berg, Rene, 2004, Some notes on the origin of Malay di-. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,

Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 160–4:532–554. Van Dijk, Teun A., 1997, The study of discourse. In T. Van Dijk, ed. Discourse as

structure and process. London: Sage, 1–34. Vandeloise, Claude, 1990, Representation, prototypes, and centrality. In S.L. Tsohatzidis,

ed. Meaning and prototypes: studies in linguistic categorization, 403–437. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.

—— 1991, Spatial prepositions: a case study from French. Transl. Anna R.K. Bosch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vendler, Zeno, 1967, Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Vimala, M., 1984, Preposisi di, ke, dari, pada: suatu analisis struktural dilihat dari sudut morfologi, fungsi dan makna. Sarjana Thesis, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Indonesia.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1984, Apples are not a kind of fruit: the semantics of human categorization. American Ethnologist 11–2:313–328.

—— 1985, Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. —— 1993, Why do we say in April, on Thursday, at 10 o’clock? In search of an

explanation. Studies in Language 17–2:437–454. —— 1996, Semantics primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R.J., 1959, A Malay-English dictionary (romanised), part II. London:

Macmillan. Wouk, Fay, 1998, Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: the discourse marker kan.

Multilingua 17–4:379–406. —— 1999, Dialect contact and koineization in Jakarta, Indonesia. Language Sciences

21:61–86. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, Cornelia, ed., 1993, The semantics of prepositions: from mental

processing to natural language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References 231

Zlatev, Jordan, 2003, Polysemy or generality? Mu. In Hubert Cuyckens, John Taylor and René Dirven, eds Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 447–494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Zoetmulder, P.J., 1982, Old Javanese-English dictionary, part II. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

semantic, pragmatic and discourse perspectives of preposition use · 2020. 5. 26. · perspectives...

Documents