以語料庫為基礎之英語與馬來語介系詞詞彙語意分析研究

(1)

以語料庫為基礎之英語與馬來語介系詞詞彙語意分析研究

研究成果報告(精簡版)

計畫類別：個別型計畫編號： NSC 100-2628-H-004-137- 執行期間： 100 年 08 月 01 日至 101 年 07 月 31 日執行單位：國立政治大學英國語文學系計畫主持人：鍾曉芳共同主持人：劉昭麟、賴惠玲計畫參與人員：碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：李旻倩博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：趙逢毅博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：林晏宇報告附件：出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文公開資訊：本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，1 年後可公開查詢

中華民國 101 年 10 月 29 日

(2)

中文摘要：本計畫旨在探討馬來語和英語中的介系詞概念，而下列幾項研究問題已在為期一年的計畫執行期中進行討論。 (1) 介系詞概念之呈現在馬來語與英語中有何異同？ (2) 在詞彙與結構層面上，此兩種語言中的介系詞概念有何異同？ (3) 介系詞概念之前後搭配詞有哪些語意特徵？而這些語意特徵在此二語言中又有何相同或相異之處? 本研究團隊已陸續發表兩篇書本章節、六篇期刊論文、十七篇會議論文(期中兩篇全文收錄於論文集中)、七場演講(包含一場專題討論)、及一篇書評，主持人亦指導五位碩博士生撰寫論文、一個大專生研究計畫、主辦 2012 台灣語言學學會大學生參與暑期語言學研習活動（其主題為語料庫語言學），並受邀審核多篇投稿論文。中文關鍵詞：介系詞概念、馬來語、英語、跨語言研究、詞彙語意學、語料庫

英文摘要： Based on the approved project, the following research questions were addressed and within one year, we managed to focus on (a), the lexical part of (b) for Malay and some construction analyses (of (b)) for English, as well as the first part of (d).

(a) How are the occurrences of prepositional concepts similar or different in Malay and in English corpora? (b) How are prepositional concepts in the two

languages similar or different when they appear at lexical and constructional levels?

(c) How will the patterns of semantic extensions within a prepositional concept differ between the two languages?

(d) What might be the semantic features of the

collocates preceding and following the prepositional concepts? What are the similarities and differences of semantic features between the two languages?

The PI＇s research team has published two book chapters, six journal papers, seventeen conference papers (two appeared with full papers in the

(3)

five dissertation-directing, one NSC College Student Project directing, be a host of the 2012 Summer Camp on Corpus Linguistics, and served as a reviewer of multiple papers.

英文關鍵詞： Prepositional Concept, Malay, English, Cross-linguistics, Lexico-semantics, Corpus

(4)

(以語料庫為基礎之英語與馬來語介系詞詞彙語意分析研究) (優秀年輕學者研究計畫) 主持人：鍾曉芳

前言

Most studies on prepositions have been carried out from the cognitive linguistic perspective (e.g., Brugman, 1981; Lindner, 1983; Lakoff, 1987), mostly focusing on one or more prepositions from a single language. There are many more other studies which also analyzed the different senses of prepositions and their semantic networks (e.g., Lindstromberg, 1996, 1998; Schulze, 1993; Kaufmann, 1993; Sandra & Rice, 1995, etc.). Cross-linguistic comparisons are also seen, especially the comparisons of European languages with English. Corpus-based studies of Malay prepositions, or their cross-linguistic comparisons, are rare.

研究目的

Based on the approved project, the following research questions were addressed and within one year, we managed to focus on (a), the lexical part of (b) for Malay and some construction analyses (of (b)) for English, as well as the first part of (d).

(a) How are the occurrences of prepositional concepts similar or different in Malay and in English corpora?

(b) How are prepositional concepts in the two languages similar or different when they appear at lexical and constructional levels?

(c) How will the patterns of semantic extensions within a prepositional concept differ between the two languages?

(d) What might be the semantic features of the collocates preceding and following the prepositional concepts? What are the similarities and differences of semantic features between the two languages?

文獻探討

Corpus-based studies of Malay prepositions can be seen in Djenar’s (2007) work on Indonesian locatives di, pada, and dalam (translated as ‘on, in, at’). (Note that the translation provided by Djenar (2007) is based on Indonesian Malay.) Djenar’s study utilized a small-scale corpus comprising texts totaling 60,000 words of Indonesian Malay, but no systematic analysis has been conducted on Standard Malaysian Malay using large scale corpora data. Although there are a series a work by Ho-Abdullah on Malay antara/di antara ‘among’ or ‘between’ (2005); di atas ‘above’ and di bawah ‘below’ (2006); and on the Malay-English comparison of in (2000); corpus data were not the focus of these work. Other research on Malay can be seen in Nomota’s (2006) work on the polysemy of the preposition kat (short form of dekat ‘near/close to’) in colloquial Malay; as well as Chung (2004) own analysis of the spatial concept of

(5)

dalam ‘in/inside’ in Malaysian Malay.

From an initial comparison, it seems that English prepositional concepts are richer than the Malay system, as similar prepositional concepts of Malay are seen repeating compared to the different prepositions in English (e.g., di atas or atas is used for onto, above, on, over, and up), while some English concepts have not equivalents in Malay (see ‘Others’). Wienold and Rohmer (1997:170) have once said that “[w]hat cannot be expressed by relational nouns or preposition in Thai and Bahasa Indonesia can easily [be] expressed in those languages by movement verbs (or combinations of movement verbs and relational nouns).”

Table 1: Prepositions in Malay and in English Prepositional Concepts

Others English Malay

against -- Menunjukkan tentangan/bertentangan dgn_[verb]

among

di antara/di keliling/di tengah-tengah/di kalangan

as -- Apabila/semasa/oleh kerana [conjunction]

at di/pada

beside di samping/di

sebelah/di sisi/ di tepi

for ke/untuk from dari/daripada

into ke dalam

like macam; seperti

of dari/daripada

onto di atas/ke

with dengan about tentang

above (di) atas

across (ke) seberang

after -- selepas/sesudah/setelah [conjunction]

around (di) sekeliling/sekitar

The list shows that it is impossible to analyze a one-to-one mapping from English to Malay (in ways of in versus di, etc.).

研究方法

(6)

lexical analyses of Malay and English prepositions, and their cross-linguistic comparisons with at least one other language. Some construction analyses were also made. All analyses were corpus-driven.

結果與討論

The discussion of this section is by themes. Some related research outcomes from previous projects (99-2410-H-004-206-) which were published during the execution of this project, or between the period of the two projects, are also discussed.

Malay Prepositions

In 2011, Chung (2011a) investigated di and dalam in Standard Malaysian Malay. This study compared three forms (di-only, dalam-only, and both di dalam) using collocation in corpus data and found that di denotes “a majority of collocates which are location, while only a minority of future time; dalam denotes location, time, and more abstract concepts such as a process, situation, and an incident… Di dalam refers more to the space of a location than to the location itself” (pg. 76). In two other papers, Chung, Proctor, and Gao (2012) compared Malay cross-linguistically with Polish and Mandarin (2012); while Chung, Lee, Lin, and Hsieh (Forthcoming) compared Malay, English and Mandarin (forthcoming). In Chung et al. (2012), they compared the SOURCE-GOAL prepositions wang3 ‘towards’, dao4 ‘till’, and cong2 ‘from’ of Mandarin; the prefixes do- ‘towards’ and prze- ‘over/through’ of Polish; and the free forms ke ‘towards’ and dari(pada) ‘from’ of Malay. These forms were compared in terms of literal and figurative meanings. In the other paper, Chung et al. (Forthcoming) compared the prepositional concept IN(SIDE) – they observed the meaning groups of the nearby NOUNs in a fixed frame like [in the NOUN of] in English and its closely related structures in Mandarin ([zai4 ‘at’ NOUN li3 ‘inside’] [zai4 ‘at’ NOUN zhong1 ‘middle’]) and Malay ([di dalam NOUN]). The behaviors of the NOUNs in these different frames were found to be both similar (e.g., as ‘objects’ or ‘places/locations’) and different (some are ‘events’ and some are ‘organizations’). The figurative meanings also display different distributions across the three languages.

In addition to the above, the PI and co-PI (Huei-Ling Lai) are also the guest editors of a Special Issue of Language and Linguistics (SSCI) volume 16.3 with the journal title “Lexico-semantic and Construction-based Studies on Malay.”

English Prepositions

Several studies have been carried out which investigated English prepositions. Chung (2012a), in her paper presented in Seoul, suggested a lexico-semantic approach

(7)

to teaching English prepositions in the Taiwan context. She also acted as a panelist in that conference. In addition, Chung (2012b) specifically analyzed the pattern [PREP + the NOUN of] in the LTTC English Learner Corpus to explore second language learners’ usage of prepositional phrases. Tseng (2012), an M.A. thesis directed by the PI, used a semantic feature analysis of prepositional phrases of ‘IN’ and ‘ON’ based on a native speaker corpus and Taiwanese learner corpus.

Focusing on the usage of prepositional phrases in the commerce and business discipline, Lin and Chung (2012) regarded [VERB from the NOUN of] as the target pattern and examined its occurrences. It was found that this pattern usually serves two functions: (1) to indicate origins and (2) to describe a variety of causal relations. Another study on prepositional pattern is conducted by Lee, Chung and Liu (2012) which aimed to see the complexity of down, in the pattern of [DOWN the NPs], which dictionary definitions or some previous studies may overlook. They investigated the metaphorical extension of this pattern and found that some features are shared by the NPs. In addition, some features of the neighboring words of down (e.g., the preceding verbs) in [down the NPs] also display some influences on the relations with down. It is this complexity that leads the single examination of a lexicon to be unable to display its semantic meanings in a fixed frame. Directed by the PI, Lee (in progress) is an M.A. thesis research on V-P construction with preposition UP and DOWN and their co-occurring P-NP structure (e.g., bed down + on cement, filled up + with tears).

As reported in the last project report, Chung, Chao, Lan, and Lin (2011) presented the work of lexical bundles of twenty-two English prepositions in October 2011 (after the execution of the last project) in Spain. This paper was later published as a journal paper in Language Value in the same year. In this paper, the fixed frames [PREPOSITION the NOUN of] (e.g., by the sight of, around the time of, etc.) and [VERB PREPOSITION the NOUN of] (submitted by the time of, set about the task of, etc.) were compared. In a different study, Chung and Chao (2011) examined specific lexical bundles that were found in the economic dissertation abstracts produced by Taiwanese learners. Chung and Chao extracted twelve multi-word sequences containing prepositions (e.g., by_II31 means_II32 of_II3) from the corpus. They later compared how the pattern would vary when a slot becomes a free variable in the pattern (e.g.,* means of, by * of, and by means *, etc.), a similar logic following Biber, Conrad, and Cortes (2004). Chung and Chao then computed the probability of the above lexical bundles to appear as fixed expressions in the corpus. In addition, Chung, working with Tsai and Liu (2011), a paper in Chinese, evaluated two analysis tools – Charniak and Stanford – by measuring the correctness of the tagging of prepositional

(8)

phrases.

In Chen, Chung, and Liu (2011), they examined [V NP1 into NP2] constructions and proposed that this construction enables a third PP-attachment structure which is different from the two (VP-attachment and NP-attachment) that have been established in previous literature. They found that a third type exist (spending themselves into poverty; vote an individual into the presidency) which can only be explained using construction grammar or caused-motion construction. In addition to the above-mentioned papers, Chung and Tseng’s (2011) study of to in a learner corpus was also published as a book chapter.

In addition, the PI has given a panel discussion (2012a), two talks (Chung, 2011d, 2012h) in the research field of English prepositions. She was also invited by five (Chung, 2012d-g) other universities to give lectures on corpus-related topics, such as “Research methodology in corpus linguistics”, “Toward a pattern analysis of corpus data”, as well as “Frequency, collocation, and phraseology in corpus linguistics,” and so on.

Lexical Semantics

Lexical semantics has been an on-going research of the PI. As for the contributions in this field, a series of studies have been carried out to examine near-synonyms and polysemy. For example, Hsu (2012), an M.A. thesis co-directed by the PI (also the winner of 2012 LST Thesis Award), analyzed the semantics of the polysemous word 發 and its metaphorical extensions. Hsu and Chung (an accepted journal paper) compared the similarities and differences between two synonyms, PÀO and JÌN. Chao and Chung (2011), a Chinese journal paper, taking 目 as an example, applied computational statistics to analyze its extent of association among multiple layers of meanings. Chung and Chao (2012), and Chao and Chung (2012), are two papers which utilized VocabGraph, a platform created by both the authors to benefit research on vocabulary and lexical items. To explore the deictic functions of huílái (回来) and huíqù (回去), Chang and Chung (2012) compared the data from corpora with those from a group Chinese participants in an experimental study.

As for the research outcomes in cross language comparisons, Chang, Lee and Chung (2012) analyzed two corresponding equivalent action verbs, Chinese PA2 and English CRAWL by utilizing a semantic feature specification system to explore how senses could differ contrastively and are derived through semantic features. This study showed that one specification of a feature may receive different weight of emphasis from the two languages, and certain features can be specific to a language only, which thus induces the derivation of a language-specific sense.

(9)

In addition, Chung (2011b) compared two verbs which have similar senses, “Create” and “Produce. Lin and Chung, 2011 inspected the semantic prosody of “CHALLENGE”. The results showed that CHALLENGE has a mixed prosody. Chen (In progress), under the PI’s instruction, is conducting her Ph.D. thesis research on the semantic analysis of four reporting verbs (show, demonstrate, indicate, and suggest). Lin (In progress) is also a Ph.D. dissertation directed by the PI on the pattern analysis of reporting verbs in academic prose.

Metaphor-related Research Outcomes

Two of Chung’s papers are metaphorical-related issues (2011c, 2012c). The firt one (2011c) focused on SARS in English News reporting in Malaysia and in the United Kingdom; the other one (2012c) dealt with Mandarin translation of English economic metaphors which are conceptually related. In 2011e, Chung also published a book notice of Metaphor and Writing: Figurative Thought in the Discourse of Written Communication. Other metaphor paper includes the abovementioned Lee et al.’s (2012) paper on [DOWN the NPs] which also focused on its metaphorical extension. There is also a newly accepted journal paper in Chinese (Chung, Ahrens and Huang, Forthcoming) which investigated the incorporation of ontologies in conceptual metaphors, a topic related to the PI’s earlier project NSC 97-2410-H-004 -001-).

The PI’s research team has published two book chapters, six journal papers, seventeen conference papers (two appeared with full papers in the conference proceedings). The PI has given seven talks (including one panel discussion), one book notice, five dissertation-directing, one NSC College Student Project directing, be a host of the 2012 Summer Camp on Corpus Linguistics, and served as a reviewer of multiple papers.

References

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad and Viviana Cortes. 2004 “If you look at…: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks.” Applied Linguistics. 25(3). pp. 371-405.

Brugman, Claudia. 1981. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York: Garland.

Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2004. Dalam in Malay: Image Schema Perspective. In Gordon Fulton, Bill Sullivan and Arle Lommel (eds.). LACUS FORUM XXX: Language, Thought and Reality. Victoria B.C., Canada: Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States. pp. 147-158.

Djenar, Dwi Noverini. 2007. Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Perspectives of Preposition Use: A Study of Indonesian Locatives. Canberra : Pacific Linguistics.

(10)

(Eds.). Diverse Voices. Readings in Language, Literature and Culture. Serdang: Penerbit UPM. pp. 112-119.

Ho-Abdullah, Imran. 2005. Pendekatan Linguistik Kognitif Dalam Pemerian “Di Antara”/ “Antara.” Jurnal Bahasa. 5(3). pp. 1-29.

Ho-Abdullah, Imran. 2006. Frasa Sendi Nama Di Atas and Di Bawah. In Zaharani Ahmad (Ed.). Bahasa Melayu: Aspek Nahu Praktis. Bangi: University Kebangsaan Malaysia. pp. 276-292.

Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1993. Semantic and Conceptual Aspects of the Preposition Durch. In Cornelia Zelinsky-Wibbelt. (Ed.). The Semantics of Prepositions: From Mental Processing to Natural Language Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 221-248.

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Linder, Susan Jean. 1983. A Lexico-semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with out and up. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Lindstromberg, Seth. 1996. Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal. 50(3). Pp.225-236.

Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nomoto, Hiroki. 2006. The Multi-purpose Preposition Kat in Colloquial Malay. 「言語情報學研究報告」. 11. pp. 69-94.

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). pp. 89-130.

Schulze, Rainer. 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. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 399-431. Wienold, Götz and Ulrich Rohmer. 1997. On Implications in Lexicalizations for

Dimension Expressions. In Kei Yamanaka and Toshio Ohari (Eds.). The Locus of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Yoshihiko Ikegami. Tokyo: Kurosio. pp. 143-185.

Research Outcomes

國外期刊

1. Chung, Siaw-Fong, F. Y. August Chao, Tien-Yu Lan, and Yen-Yu Lin. 2011. “Analyses of the Semantic Features of the Lexical Bundle [(VERB) PREPOSITION the NOUN of].” Language Value. 3(1). pp. 138-152. (ISOC) 2. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. Forthcoming.

"Ontologies and Conceptual Metaphors in English and Mandarin (中英知識本體與概念隱喻)." In Chu-Ren Huang and Sophia Lee (eds.),《當代語言學》. Special Issue on Ontology and Chinese Language Processing.

3. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011c. “A Corpus-based Study of SARS in English News Reporting in Malaysia and in the United Kingdom.” International Review of Pragmatics. 3. Pp. 268-291.(LLBA)

4. Hsu, You-fen and Siaw-Fong Chung. Accepted. “A Corpus-Based Study of Mandarin Soaking Verbs PÀO and JÌN.” International Journal of Computer Processing of Languages (IJCPOL) (Special Issue). Issue 3, 2012. (CSA)

國內期刊

5. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011b. “A Corpus-based Analysis of “Create” and “Produce.”” Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 4(2). pp. 399-425. (THCI)

6. 趙逢毅、鍾曉芳。2011。基於辭典詞彙釋義之多階層語義關聯程度計量 ─ 以

(11)

國外專書/篇章

1. Chung, Siaw-Fong and Yu-Wen Tseng. 2011. “Learning Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study in Taiwan EFL Contexts.” In Marek Konopka, Jacqueline Kubczak, Christian Mair, František Štícha, and Ulrich H.Waßner (Hgg.). (Eds.). Grammar & Corpora 2009: Third International Conference. Corpus Linguistics and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language Series. Volume 1. Tübingen, Germany: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG. pp. 575-583.

2. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012c. “Mandarin Translation of English Economic Metaphors: A Cross-linguistic Study of Conceptually Related Economic Terms.” In Honesto Herrera and Michael White. (eds.). Metaphor and Mills: Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics Series. Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN: 978-3-11-027458-5

國外研討會

1. Chang, Yu-Tung and Siaw-Fong Chung. 2012. “Deictic Functions of Huílái (回 来) and Huíqù ( 回去 ): A Corpus-based and Experimental Study.” Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-20). The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. August 29-31.

2. Chen, Li-Yin, Siaw-Fong Chung, and Chao-Lin Liu. 2011. “A Construction Grammar Approach to Prepositional Phrase Attachment: Semantic Feature Analysis of V NP1 into NP2 Construction.” Poster presented at the 25th Pacific Asia Conference on Language Information and Computing (PACLIC 25). Also appearing in the conference proceedings. Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. December 16-18. pp. 607-614.

3. Chung, Siaw-Fong and F. Y August Chao. 2011. “Preposition-Containing Lexical Bundles and Idiomatic Expressions in Economics Dissertations.” Presented at the 10th Conference for the American Association for Corpus Linguistics (AACL), Georgia State University in Atlanta, GA, USA, October 7-9. 4. Chung, Siaw-Fong and F.Y. August Chao. 2012. “A Semantic Integrated

Vocabulary Analyzing Tool for ESL Teaching.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium on Lexicography and L2 Teaching & Learning. Shaanxi Normal University, China. October 20-22.

5. Chung, Siaw-Fong and Yu-Wen Tseng. 2011. “Learning Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study in Taiwan EFL Contexts.” Poster presented at the Third International Conference Grammar and Corpora. Mannheim, Germany. September 22-24, 2009.

6. Chung, Siaw-Fong, F. Y. August Chao, Tien-Yu Lan, and Yen-Yu Lin. 2011. “Analyses of the Semantic Features of the Lexical Bundle [(VERB) PREPOSITION the NOUN of].” Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Metaphor and Discourse: Verb-particle Constructions and their Underlying Semantic Systems. Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana, Spain. October 19-20.

7. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Katarzyna Proctor, and Wei-Chen Kao. 2012. “‘Prepositions’, Verbs, and Their Metaphorical Extensions: An investigation of Mandarin, Polish, and Malay.” Paper presented at the Cognitive Linguistics in the Year 2012 Conference. University of Wrocław, Poland. September 17-18.

8. Chung, Siaw-Fong, Min-Chien Lee, Yen-Yu Lin, and Ming-Che Hsieh. Forthcoming. “Cross-linguistic Literal and Metaphorical Comparisons of IN(SIDE): A perspective from Mandarin, Malay, and English.” To be presented at the Meaning of P (with a special session on spatial polysemy). The Department of Linguistics (Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut) of Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany. November 23-24.

(12)

Prepositions (Cases of Taiwanese Classrooms).” 2012 International Conference on Educational Media. Educational Broadcasting System (EBS), Seoul, Korea. June 15. (Also as a Panelist)

10. Lee, Min-Chien, Chung, Siaw-Fong, and Chao-Lin Liu. 2012. “A Corpus-based Investigation of Metaphorical Extensions of “Down the NPs.”” Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2012 (GURT 2012). Washington, DC., USA, March 8-11。

11. Lin, Yen-Yu and Siaw-Fong Chung. 2011. “A Study on the Semantic Preference and Semantic Prosody of “CHALLENGE”.” Presented at the 2011 Corpus Linguistics Conference (Discourse and Corpus Linguistics). Birmingham, England. July 20-22.

國內研討會

12. Chang, Chieh, Min-Chien Lee, and Siaw-Fong Chung. 2012. “Comparing English-Mandarin Lexical Concepts of CRAWL.” Poster presented at the International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. April, 19-21. 13. Chao, F.Y. August and Siaw-Fong Chung. 2012. “VocabGraph: Semantic Graph

Inspector with Referred Word List.” Poster presented at the International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. April, 19-21.

14. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011a. “Investigating Di and Dalam in Standard Malaysian Malay through Corpus Data.” In the E-Proceedings of the Workshop on the Representation of Time in Asian Languages. Academia Sinica, Taiwan. October 26-28. pp. 65-79. Conference Proceedings

15. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012b. “A Pattern Analysis of [PREP + the NOUN of] in the LTTC English Learner Corpus.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. April, 19-21.

16. Lin, Yen-Yu and Siaw-Fong Chung. 2012. “The Use of “VERB from the NOUN of” in Published Writing in Commerce.” Poster presented at the 6th Conference on Language, Discourse, and Cognition (CLDC2012). National Taiwan University, Taiwan. May 4-6.

17. 蔡家琦、劉昭麟及鍾曉芳。以介系詞片語定位之決策品質評比 Charniak 和

Stanford 剖析器，中華民國一百年全國計算機會議論文集，即將出版。臺

灣，嘉義，2011 年，12 月 2-3 日。158-169 頁。Conference Proceedings

國外演講

1. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012a. Panelist of the Session “English Language Teaching and Learning.” 2012 International Conference on Educational Media. Educational Broadcasting System (EBS), Seoul, Korea. June 15.

國內演講

2. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011d. “Patterns of Prepositions in Corpora.” Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Tsing Hua University. November 9.

3. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012d. “Frequency, Collocation, and Phraseology in Corpus Linguistics.” Department of English Instruction, Taipei Municipal University of Education. May 8.

4. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012e. “On Developing Expertise for Emerging Linguists.” 第五屆語言學沙龍:圓桌分享. National Taiwan University, Taiwan. March 3. 5. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012f. “Research Methodology in Corpus Linguistics.”

(13)

University. April 16.

6. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012g. “Towards a Pattern Analysis of Corpus Data.”第三 屆語言學研究方法研討會:語料庫語言學研究方法. Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Chengchi University. May 11.

7. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2012h. “Pattern Analysis in Corpora: A Case Study of English Prepositions.” Department of English Instruction, Taipei Municipal University of Education. May 22.

國外書評

1. Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2011e. Book Notice of Metaphor and Writing: Figurative Thought in the Discourse of Written Communication. By Philip Eubanks. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2011. eLanguage. Linguistics Society of America (LSA).

指導論文

1. Chen, Li-Yin. In progress. A Corpus-based Semantic Analysis of Reporting Verbs (Show, Demonstrate, Indicate, Suggest) in Academic Discourse. Unpublished PhD thesis, National Chengchi Univeristy, Taipei, Taiwan.

2. [Hsu] 許尤芬。2012。中文多義詞「發」之語義探討：以語料庫為本。碩士論文。臺北市立教育大學。(共同指導)

3. Lee, Min-Chien. In progress. An Analysis of V-P Construction with Preposition UP and DOWN and its Co-Occurring P-NP Structure. Unpublished Master thesis, National Chengchi Univeristy, Taipei, Taiwan.

4. Lin, Yen-Yu. In progress. An Investigation of the Lexical-grammatical Patterns in Student and Professional Corpora: Lexical Bundle and Beyond. Unpublished PhD thesis, National Chengchi Univeristy, Taipei, Taiwan.

5. Tesng, Yu-Wen. 2012. Semantic Feature Analysis of Prepositional Phrases: A Study Based On English Native Speaker Corpus and Learner Corpus. Unpublished M.A. thesis, National Chengchi Univeristy, Taipei, Taiwan.

大專學生參與專題研究計畫

黃亦敏. “Distinguishing ‘Nice’ From ‘Good.’”計畫編號：101-2815-C-004-010-H (2012.07-2013.02)

Summer Camp

(14)

Corpus Data.” In the E‐Proceedings of the Workshop on the Representation of Time in Asian Languages. Academia Sinica, Taiwan. October 26‐28. pp. 65‐79.

Investigating Di and Dalam in Standard Malaysian Malay through Corpus Data

Siaw-Fong Chung National Chengchi University

[email protected]

Abstract

Di dalam shows a combination of a locative marker plus a relational noun. In a prestigious Malay dictionary Kamus Dewan, the meanings of di, dalam, and di dalam are highly overlapped. This paper claims that it is important to investigate the collocations of these prepositional concepts as they reflect high semantic-closeness yet with subtle differences. A corpus-based analysis of the collocates of di, dalam, and di dalam, and an interpretation of their semantics are conducted in this work.

1. Introduction

Studies on prepositions which were carried out from the cognitive linguistic perspective are such as Brugman (1981), Lindner (1981/1983), Lakoff (1987), etc. Cross-linguistic studies on prepositions have also been seen in Hawkins (1993) on English and Japanese; in Brée, Smit and Werkhoven (1990) on English and Dutch; etc. Other than these, investigation of at least one preposition in a single language can also be found in Kristofferensen (2001) on Norwegian mot ‘toward, against,’ and Cuyckens (1993) on Dutch in. For Malay, in different varieties, studies of prepositions are also seen. Examples are Djenar’s (2007) work on Indonesian locatives di, pada, and dalam (translated as ‘on, in, at’), Nomota’s (2006) work on the polysemy of the preposition kat (short form of dekat ‘near/close to’) in colloquial Malay, Chung’s (2004) analysis of the spatial concept of dalam ‘in(side)’ in Malaysian Malay, and a series a work by Ho-Abdullah on Malay antara/di antara ‘among’ or ‘between’ (2005); di atas ‘above’ versus di bawah ‘below’ (2006); and on the Malay-English comparison of in (2000); as well as on Arabic and Malay at by Hasan and Ho-Abdullah (2008). These studies detail the meanings of one or more prepositions in Malay but no specific discussion was found with regard to the meaning difference among di, dalam, and their combination di dalam, all of which mean ‘in(side)’ (di has another meaning of ‘at’) in Standard Malaysian Malay. Ho-Abdullah (2000) has discussed the differences when using di-only and dalam-only. The presence or absence of topological force, and the presence or absence of relationship between two entities are postulated for each use respectively. Although these claims are important to the investigation discussed herein, it was found that no previous studies have looked into the neighboring words of di, dalam, and di dalam. Assuming that the presence or absence of a word will bring minor semantic differences, there should be differences in the choice of collocates or nouns that appear after di, dalam, and di dalam but this has not been inspected previously. With this hypothesis in mind, this paper will address the following

(15)

research questions.

a. What are the possible differences between di, dalam, and di dalam in Standard Malaysian Malay?

b. How can a corpus-based study reveal information that help distinguish among them?

Intended to differentiate di and dalam (and consequently their combination), this paper first investigates dictionary meanings. The results, however, show that their definitions are circular – the definition of di overlaps with dalam; the word dalam is used to define di, and di dalam is also used to define dalam. In order to answer the above questions, the two words, di and dalam, are then inspected using a one-milion size corpus of Standard Malaysian Malay. For terminology clarification, the following discussion is given.

2. Terminology Clarification

By definition, the Malay prepositions are a closed class. However, there is a slight variation in this closed set of prepositions included by different scholars. Table 1 below summarizes the list of prepositions given by two scholars (Ho-Abdullah, 2000; and Nik Safiah et al., 1997:402).

Table 1: List of Prepositions in Malay (Translation by the applicant)

di ke dari daripada kepada pada untuk dengan sejak* tentang sampai* bagi demi# at to/

toward

from (place)

from

(person) to at for with since about till/until for for *Not in Ho-Abdullah (2000:113); #Not in Nik Safiah et al. (1997:402)

The list in Table 1 excludes some concepts such as BETWEEN, UNDER, DOWN,etc., which are usually listed when a search on ‘preposition’ is conducted for English.1 Among the prepositions in Table 1, Sneddon (2010:195) states that only the first three (di, ke, and dari) “indicate position and direction” while the others are not. In Wienold and Rohmer’s (1997:169) typological study on the lexicalization of dimensional expressions such as long-short, wide-narrow, etc., they explain that the Indonesian dalam is a ‘relational noun’ to mean ‘inside’ (Goddard (2009) calls these ‘dimensional expressions.’). The combination di dalam thus shows a locative marker plus a relational noun to mean ‘inside’ in general.

On the other hand, di is recognized as a preposition and a locative marker. Blust (1989) calls the use of di as ‘adhesive locative’ (pg.197) and a ‘generic locative marker’ (1997:45) at the same time. Specifically, Blust (1989) cites examples from Chamorro and Malagasy,

1

(16)

explaining that gi and am in gi-tatten ‘behind’ (Chamorro) and am-bany ‘below’ (Malagasy) are adhesive locatives, while tatten and bany are called “specifiers” (pg.198).

Djenar (2007), on the other hand, uses terms such as ‘general localizer’ (pg. 37), ‘locatives’ (book title), ‘preposition’ (pg. 1), and ‘locative preposition’ (pg. 1) interchangeably. Some, like Fillmore (1968, cited in Dirven & Radden 1987:24), define ‘locative’ as a ‘case’ “which identifies the location or spatial orientation of the state or action identified by the verb.” Similarly, Blake (2001:33) classifies locative markers as ‘local cases,’ aside from the five “core cases” of ‘nominative,’ ‘accusative,’ ‘ergative,’ ‘genitive’ and ‘dative.’ The ‘local cases’ comprise notions such as location (at), destination (to), source (from), and path (through). Huumo (1996:265), on the other hand, calls the locative phrases ‘locative adverbials’: “[T]he primary function of locative adverbials is to introduce different types of spaces, scenes, or background, in relation to which other elements in the sentence are perceived.”

Despite the above, some scholars (e.g., Ramlan (1980); Datang (1989); Vimala (1984); Lapoliwa (1992); and Tjia (2007)) still prefer to use the traditional labeling of ‘preposition’ for Indonesian. Adler (2008), who investigates French prepositions, has used ‘compound prepositions,’ ‘prepositional locutions,’ and ‘prepositional phrases’ to refer to the French preposition system. In Malaysian Malay, the same reference to ‘preposition’ is usually used (cf. Table 1 previously). The words in the position of bawah, such as atas ‘above,’ belakang ‘back,’ utara ‘north,’ selatan ‘south,’ etc., are named ‘directional nouns’ (viz Kata Nama Arah) by Nik Safiah et al. (1997), or ‘relational nouns’ by Wienold and Rohmer (1997), whereas Sneddon (2010:195) calls them ‘locative nouns.’ Broschart (1997:287), in his analysis of Tongan, has used the terminology ‘local nouns’ or ‘prepositional nouns’ to refer to the nouns that follow the locative markers. In order to avoid confusion of terminology, this paper uses Wienold and Rohmer’s terminology: Dalam is a ‘relational noun’ to mean ‘inside’ while di is recognized as a preposition and a locative marker.

3. Malay Prepositions: Di and Dalam

Many (cf. Sneddon (2010) and Nik Safiah et al. (1994)) have considered di as a preposition which “indicate position and direction”, but not dalam. This part of the discussion will inspect some examples using each of these three forms. The following examples in (1) show the use of di-only (1a), dalam-only (1b), and di dalam (1c). (Free translation by the author is used in most of the examples.)

(1) a. Albader Parad dan lima rakannya terbunuh dalam pertempuran dengan tentera laut di

kawasan hutan di kaki Gunung Tucay,… (0119.txt)

“Albader Parad and five of his friends were killed in the combat with navy in the forest area at the bottom of Tucay Mountain…”

(17)

b. Beliau berkata, bagi pemegang Lesen Perjanjian Pengurusan Hutan Mampan (SFMLA), mereka perlu menyediakan pelan tindakan mencegah kebakaran dalam kawasan hutan masing-masing. (0433.txt)

“[Honorable] He said, for license holders of Sustainable Forest Management Licence Agreement (SFMLA), they will need to prepare action plan to avoid fire to occur in their respective forest area.”

c. Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kelantan, ACP Mazlan Lazim berkata, mereka ditahan pukul 11.20 malam tadi dalam operasi mencegah jenayah di kawasan

perumahan tersebut. (1858.txt)

“The head of the Kelantan Criminal Investigation Division, ACP Mazlan Lazim said, they [the criminals] were detained at 11.20 last night in an operation to abolish [originally, ‘to avoid’] crime in that housing area.”

d. “Selain itu, program seperti ini memupuk kesedaran serta semangat kejiranan apabila duduk di dalam kawasan perumahan yang sama,” katanya ketika ditemui baru-baru ini. (4168.txt)

“Other than that, a program like this raises awareness as well as neighborhood spirit when residing inside the same housing area,” he said when interviewed [originally, ‘when met’] recently.”

All these examples show the use of di, dalam, and di dalam with the word kawasan ‘area,’ be they forest area ((1a) and (1b)) or housing area ((1c) and (1d)). It is, therefore, expected that the concept of an area can be used with all three forms. However, in the following example in (2), when we re-investigate the previous example in (1a), differences among di, dalam, and di dalam are observed. As there are other uses of di and dalam in this example in addition to the identified di kawasan hutan earlier in (1a), we will compare the possibility of replacing one with a different form, shown in shaded square brackets

(2) Albader Parad dan lima rakannya terbunuh dalam pertempuran [*di dalam pertempuran/ *di pertemburan] dengan tentera laut di kawasan hutan [dalam kawasan hutan/ di dalam kawasan hutan] di kaki Gunung Tucay, [*dalam kaki Gunung Tucay/ *di dalam kaki Gunung Tucay]… (0119.txt) [dalam kawasan hutan

“Albader Parad and five of his friends were killed in the combat with navy in the forest area at the bottom of Tucay Mountain…”

(18)

cannot be replaced with di dalam or di. The second underlined phrase di kawasan hutan, as shown in (1) earlier, can be replaced with both. The third underlined phrase di kaki Gunung Tucay ‘at the bottom of Mountain Tucay’ cannot be replaced with either one, too.2 It seems important what the following noun is in each phrase, i.e., the types of nouns that follow di, dalam, and di dalam might help display the semantic distinction among these three forms. Given this, our intention is to examine all the different types of nouns that go with di, dalam, and di dalam respectively in a large set of corpus data. In what follows, we will first discuss what previous literature has said about the presence or absence of any of di or dalam in a sentence. In the examples (3) below, an elaboration based on the relation noun bawah ‘below’ is conducted.

(3) a. Dilarang membuang air kecil di bawah pokok yang berbuah dan tempat berteduh. (0793.txt)

“[You are] forbidden to piss under a tree that bears fruits or in a shielded place.”3

b. Penduduk diminta tidak menggantung plastik-plastik sampah di pokok serta di pagar rumah… (4669.txt)

“Residents were asked not to hang garbage in plastic bags at the tree and at the gate of [their] house”

c. Dalam cerita ‘Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak’ ada kisah bersidang bawah pokok sehingga pokok tersebut dijadikan satu tempat bersejarah. (3206.txt)

“In the story ‘Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak’ there is an incident about meeting under the tree which makes the tree to become a historical spot.” [literally, “until the tree becomes a famous spot”]

Sneddon (2010:196) says the following regarding the omission of a relational noun (termed ‘locative noun’ below).

The locative noun can be omitted […] if it refers to a position which is normally understood; thus di laci for di dalam laci ‘in(side) the drawer,’ di meja for di atas meja ‘on (top of) the table. If, however, some other position is referred to, the locative noun is necessary: di bawah meja ‘under the table….For many speakers di is omitted before a locative noun if figurative space is referred to; in this case, the locative noun occurs alone as a preposition. [originally bolded]

2

It might be the case that kaki here is itself a relational noun. 3

(19)

Following this reasoning, di bawah pokok in (3a) cannot be replaced with di bawah pokok because di pokok can mean ‘at the tree’ as in (3b). However, it is difficult to see how bawah pokok in (3c) can become a figurative space. In the example in (4) below, it still makes no sense why ‘a program’ is not a figurative space because if it is, it should not sound odd to appear as bawah program but in fact it does. (All instances of bawah program are preceded by di in the corpus used for this work. No instance of di bawah program was found.)

(4) Ini adalah salah satu aktiviti di bawah program [*di program/ *bawah program] tanggungjawab zakat korporat yang sudah dilaksanakan sejak 2006 lagi. (4615.txt) “This is one of the activities under the program responsible by the tithe corporate which has taken place since 2006”

Following the above discussion, we can see why kawasan ‘area’ in (1) above can be used with all three – because as an area, kawasan does not require the specific information of orientation and any forms of di, dalam, or di dalam refer to a space in(side) the area. This further confirms the need to investigate the nouns that follow the prepositions.

Other studies which also discuss any one(s) of di, dalam, and di dalam are also detailed below. For instance, Djenar’s (2007:220) study on Indonesian dalam, di, and pada was motivated by the interchangeable status of the three in Indonesian (but not in Malaysian Malay). Djenar lists the three senses for di and fourteen senses for dalam, given below in (5) and (6), respectively (underlines added).

(5) Senses for di

(a) X occupies the same portion of physical space as Y (b) Event X happens at the same time as time Y

(c) Abstract concept X is associated with physical/abstract space Y (6) Senses for dalam

(a) X is inside three-dimensional space Y (b) X is inside two-dimensional space Y (c) X us below the Y’s surface

(d) X is part of Y’s structure/compositions (e) X is in state Y

(f) X is in grouping/category Y (g) X is in the sense/context of Y

(h) X occurs during activity Y (i) X is within abstract linear space Y

(j) Activity X is part of the set of practices Y (k) Feature X is part of linguistic concept Y (l) Position X is part of hierarchy Y

(m) Event X occurs some time during time span Y

(n) Event X pertains during time span Y

Dalam seems to have more extended meanings than di does. For di and dalam in Indonesian, both can refer to time ((5b), (6h), (6m), and (6n)), but only dalam refers to both three- (6a) and two-dimensional space (6b). Djenar also hypothesizes pada to have originated from

(20)

Indonesian Malay, some meaning differences are expected between Indonesian Malay and Malaysian Standard Malay. Although Djenar claims that dalam, di, and pada are interchangeable, many of Djenar’s examples (e.g., di kita ini ‘in-us-this’ to mean ‘in our community’) cannot be found in the Standard Malay in Malaysia. At the end of this paper, meanings in (5) and (6) will be re-evaluated against the data we found.

In a different study, Chung (2004) investigates the word dalam or any derived form of it, including sentences when it appears as a preposition, adjective, or its derivational forms such as pe-dalam-an ‘inner land.’ As a preliminary study, Chung found three main image schemata, listed in (7), and a series of meaning extensions (cf. Table 2 to follow) given for dalam.

(7) Image schemata of dalam (modified from Chung, 2004:150)

(a) Schema 1 　 CONTAINER Inside a three-dimensional space (b) Schema 2 NEAR-FAR Far from the side of a boundary (c) Schema 3 MASS-COUNT Among; in between

The examples for CONTAINER are given in (8) below (pg. 150), taken from Sejarah Melayu (SM), a Malay classic manuscript. (Glosses were modified from Chung.)

(8) a. SM 99:15 . ...jika dalam paya yang dalam, atau duri yang semak, if DALAMPREP. Swamp REL DALAM or thorn REL bushes

‘If (it is) inside a deep swamp or within thorny bushes,…’

b. SM 13:32 …masuk ke dalam laut enter LOC DALAMNoun sea

‘…go into the sea…’

In (8a), the first dalam is a preposition, the second one is an adjective; the one in (8b) is a [relational] noun. However, a second look into (8a) can tell that the addition of di before the first dalam in (8a) will bring about a different reading – di dalam paya yang dalam, although will be translated similarly in English, refers to a more specific although unidentified location closer to the center of the swamp than a general ‘inside the swamp’ meaning. Example (8b) refers to a motion towards a deeper level of the sea because of the presence of ke ‘towards’. As dalam means both ‘inside’ as a noun and ‘deep’ as an adjective, Blust (1997:44) once mentioned that dalam with “the meaning ‘deep’ […] do[es] not refer to e.g. deep holes, or other solid structures, but generally to deep water.” Blust also cites Dempwolff’s (1938) discussion that the meaning of dalam should not be seen as modifying a three-dimensional object but with the meaning ‘under a planar surface.’ (cf. discussion in Chung). Nevertheless, from Djenar’s study (cf. (5) above) and Chung’s study, both seem to agree that there is a

(21)

three-dimensional space meaning accorded to dalam. Yet, if we contrast dalam and di dalam, as is done above for (8a), the one without di seems to mean ‘under a planar surface of a three-dimensional object’ than di dalam, which indicates a more specific location.

For NEAR-FAR schema, Chung uses the derived form of dalam – pe-dalam-an ‘inner land’ – as examples (pg. 152), which refers to a concept far away from a boundary of a two-dimensional object like that of a map of a city. For MASS-COUNT, Chung uses Lakoff’s (1987) explanation of a high-above view of ‘amongst’ when referring to an object within a mass group of things. Other meaning extensions of dalam are given in Table 2 below, most of which can be matched to those of Djenar’s senses in (6b).

Table 2: Other Meanings of dalam and their Possible Image-schemata (Taken from Chung,

2004:154)

Meanings of dalam Image-schemata

a) during; within a duration PATH

b) while; in the process of PATH

c) (be) at the stage of LOCATION

d) inside, within, (an organization, a family, a matter, program, context, issue, report, etc.)

CONTAINER e) in the state of (emotion, sadness, quietness, etc.) CONTAINER

f) not little; more than what is enough CONTAINER

g) profound CONTAINER

h) inner; internal; not obvious from outside CONTAINER

i) (literal) palace area; royal CONTAINER

In this table, dalam clearly shows to have a temporal extension.

As for di, Ho Abdullah (2006:282) found that the difference between Dia di restoran ‘He is at [the] restaurant’ and Dia di dalam restoran ‘He is inside [the] restaurant’ lies in “how a speech community structures or conceptualizes a target as a location, and how that speech community wishes to conceptualize a particular target following the meaning intended to be portrayed or factors surrounding the speaker” [translated by the author]. Ho-Abdullah provides the following Figure 1 as explanation to differentiate between di and di atas ‘above’ (pg. 288, new labels by the author). According to this figure, di atas tapak binaan (A) is different from atas tapak binaan (B) (both mean ‘on the construction site’) because di serves as the connector between two entities (the trajector: the round object; and the landmark: construction site). With di only, the relationship between the trajector and landmark is present (C); without di but with atas-only (B), the relationship between the two is unstated, but the focus of the topological function and the aspect of dynamic force in the ‘above’ orientation is present. With both di and atas (A), the relationship and topological function, as well aspect of dynamic force are present [interpretation based on the quotation below].

Kata sendi di memprofitkan hubang kait antara tanda tempat dan trajektor, tetapi senyap tentang aspek fungsi topological dan dinamik daya. Manakala penggunaan kata nama arah sahaja adalah senyap tentang hubung kaitan lokasi tetapi terfokus

(22)

kepada konfigurasi topological, dinamik daya dan fungsi dalam satu ufuk menegak. (pg. 289)

Figure 1: Schemata of Di, Atas, and Di Atas by Ho-Abdullah (2006:288)

This explanation takes a different perspective from Sneddon’s as he says that in cases where the location is understood (cf. discussion in example (3) earlier), the noun can be omitted (thus, C in Figure 1 above). Ho-Abdullah further explains that the removal of the relational noun atas will also remove the topological function and dynamic force given to the ‘above’ orientation that is present with A and B. These explanations, although helpful in differentiating some examples, might seem difficult to produce an overview of which goes with which. Some nouns such as kawasan (cf. example (1) earlier) can appear with all three but some nouns (e.g., di dalam program) only appear in one single form. In Malaysian Malay, the differences among di, dalam, and di dalam are never obviously laid out with explicit examples of nouns that follow each of these. As none of the cited previous studies have differentiated di, dalam, and di dalam through inspecting their following noun collocates, this paper will demonstrate that such a step is crucial to the understanding of these forms.

4. Methodology

Two main steps were taken for the analysis of di, dalam, and di dalam. First, a re-evaluation of meanings through the dictionary was carried out. Second, an investigation into the noun collocates of the respective three was undertaken. A search in a self-compiled one-million

A: B:

(23)

word corpus consisting news articles from Utusan Malaysia was undertaken. The use of di/dalam/di dalam, along with their collocates, was inspected using the AntConc concordance 3.2.2.1w (Anthony, 2005). The top noun collocates of each of di, dalam, and di dalam were recorded. Only the immediate collocates were collected. If an immediate collocate shows to be a classifier (i.e., se-buah ‘one-CLASS’), a second-level search was further conducted to see what are the nouns that follow this classifier.

5. Results

For the investigation of dictionary meanings, the results are presented in Table 3. From Table 3, we can see that di has three meanings, one of which (sense 3) belongs to the Minangkabau dialect, and thus will not be further discussed. Sense 1 of di states clearly that di is a preposition to indicate location. In sense 2, which is where the meaning of di overlaps with dalam, the word dalam is used to define di, and both di and dalam are used to define dalam (see sense 2 of dalam; both in bolds). Therefore, it is highly probable that di, dalam, and di dalam are highly overlapped and they all contain the prepositional IN concept.

When temporal meanings are concerned, the meanings in Table 3 are somewhat misleading. For example, sense 2 of di is defined as ‘at, inside’ but the examples given are two different types – ‘in(side) the eyes’ and ‘in the next day.’ This meaning is different from sense 4 of dalam which refers particularly to time. In addition, only dalam as a ‘while’ reading (sense 3). The meanings for di in Table 3 is quite similar to Djenar’s (2007:220) list of senses (in (5) earlier) that in Indonesian, di is also accorded a temporal sense (i.e., Event X happens at the same time as time Y). The critical question now is: these two lists of definitions are still insufficient to distinguish among di, dalam, and di dalam.

Table 3: Comparisons of Di and Dalam in a Malay Dictionary (With translation added by

the author; underline and bold added)

Di in Kamus Dewan Dalam in Kamus Dewan

1. kata sendi name yg menunjukkan tempat dll: ketika cuti sekolah, Busu lebih suka duduk ~ rumah drpd berjalan-jalan; ~atas, ~bawah;

“Preposition that shows location, etc.: during school holiday, Busu prefers to stay at home than going out; above, below”

1. antara, di kalangan: ~ mereka yg bertiga belas itu ada yang bergirang-girang;

“Between, among: Among the thirteen people, there are some who are excited.”

2. pada, dalam: wajah Mawi terbayang ~ mata Aini; ~ hari kemudian;

“At, inside: Mawi’s face is reflected in the eye of Aini; In the next day;”

3. Mn pada, kepada, akan, oleh, dari: datang ~ air datang dr sungai

“Mn [Minangkabau] at, to, about, by, from: to arrive by river.”

2. di dalam (bukan di luar lingungan dsb sesuatu): ~ Willayah Persekutuan; ~ bidang mata pelajaran tersebut;

“Inside (not out of the scope, etc. of something): In the municipality (directly under the jurisdiction of the Central Government); inside the subject (of learning).”

(24)

“While: While we are hoping that the situation will become better, we should always remind ourselves (of something).”

4. pd waktu (tertentu): jika berharap keadaan akan

bertambah baik ~ tahun hadapan; dia masih ~ patang lagi;

“At (certain) time: if (someone) hopes that the situation will be better at the year ahead; he is still at his rebellion stage.”

In Table 4 below, the results from corpus analysis are displayed. From Table 4, the total number of hits is given in the second row. The noun collocates for dalam exclude all instances of di dalam. From the second column, we can see that dalam is the top fifth noun collocate of di (below bawah ‘below’), indicating its high collocation with di compared with other relation nouns such as luar ‘outside’ (13th), atas ‘above’ (19th), antara ‘among’ (25th), etc.

Table 4: Top Ten Noun Collocates of Di, Dalam, and Di Dalam in a Malay Corpus

di dalam di dalam

Total hits 26,398 12,386 605

Top Ten Collocates

Sini ‘here’ (3131) Kawasan ‘area’ (867) Negara ‘country’ (800) Bawah ‘below’ (723) Dalam ‘inside’ (605) Kalangan ‘compound’ (542) Negeri ‘state’ (500) Malaysia ‘Malaysia’ (403) Seluruh ‘whole’ (380)

(country, world, state, Malaysia) Mana ‘where’ (356) Negeri ‘state’ (820) Tempoh ‘period’ (430) Satu ‘one’ (367) Pada ‘at’ (348) Bidang ‘field’(334) Keadaan ‘situation’ (294) Usaha ‘attempt’ (232) Masa ‘time’ (198) Kejadian ‘incident’ (170) Kes ‘case’ (124) Kenyataan ‘truth’ (124) Sebuah ‘One-Class’ (22) (room, place, things) Negara ‘country’ (18) Rumah ‘house’ (17) Kawasan ‘area’ (13) Bilik ‘room’ (13) Kereta ‘car’ (12) Penjara ‘prison’ (10) Diri ‘self’ (10) Bidang ‘field’ (10) Tong ‘tank’ (8)

From Table 4, one can see that the collocates for di are mostly location (country, area, compound, state, etc.). The use of pronoun sini ‘here’ and mana ‘where’ cannot be found in the other two forms (*dalam sini/ *di dalam mana). As for dalam, the most frequently seen noun is negeri ‘state,’ followed by tempoh ‘period.’ Masa ‘time’ was also found among the top ten collocates of dalam only. When a second search was conducted, masa ‘time’ was found to occur 36 times with di but only the future time was referred to (masa depan, masa hadapan, masa akan datang) (9a-9b). When a duration of time is meant, dalam will be used instead (9c-9d). Masa ‘time’ is never used with di dalam.

(9) a. Karnival itu, katanya, diharap dapat memberi peluang kepada bakal graduan UTeM untuk merancang kerjaya mereka di masa depan. (1924.txt) [*di dalam/ *dalam]

“The carnival, he said, is hoped to give chances to the graduates-to-be of UTeM [a local university] to plan their career in the future.”

(25)

b. Menurut beliau, kerajaan negeri kini sedang merangka strategi pertumbuhan ekonomi Perak di masa akan datang dengan penekanan kepada pelan pembangunan Perak Aman Jaya (4529.txt) [*di dalam/ *dalam]

“[Honorable] He said, the present state government is structuring strategies for the growth of economy in Perak in the future by emphasizing on the building plan of Perak Aman Jaya”

c. Saya akan buat satu kertas kerja bagaimana untuk mendapatkan jumlah itu dalam

masa setahun ini,... (0778.txt) [*di masa/ *di dalam masa]

“I will do a working paper on how to obtain that amount of money within a year.”

d. Beliau berkata, berikutan itu, jumlah anggota dan pegawai polis wanita yang kini 11 peratus akan ditambah kepada 20 peratus dalam tempoh lima tahun. (0175.txt) [*di tempoh/ *di dalam tempoh]

“[Honorable] He said, following this, the total number of [police] team and policewomen will increase from 11 per cent now to 20 per cent within five years.”

Di usually refers to an indefinite time in the future; Dalam can only be used to refer to a range of time, regardless of speaking time. When dalam can play the role of indicating the range of time, there is no need to add di before it to make it more specific by further indicating the point of time in the duration. This explains why there is no instance of di dalam with either time or duration in our corpus.

6. Conclusion

To summarize, di was found to denote a majority of collocates which are location, while only a minority of future time; dalam denotes location, time, and more abstract concepts such as a process, situation, and an incident. Many of the noun collocates of dalam are nominalized forms of nouns such as keadaan ‘situation,’ kejadian ‘happening,’ and kenyataan ‘truth.’ Di dalam refers more to the space of a location than to the location itself. The fact that di is only used to refer to future time because a different preposition, pada ‘at,’ is usually used to refer to time. Ho-Abdullah (2000:116), in the comparison of the English preposition in and the Malay dalam, states that: For examples such as He was shot at 8 o’clock, He was hot on Monday, and He was shot in 1996, the preposition pada will be used in translating these sentences.

In each case a single dedicated Malay sendi nama, i.e., pada, is used to locate an event as a point in temporal space; to locate an event as being in ‘contact’ with a time or period of time; and to locate an event as being enclosed in some time span.

(26)

Thus, the metaphorical extensions of in into other conceptual domains are not necessarily mirrored by the equivalent spatial preposition di dalam (and there is no reason to assume that it should).

Therefore, when referring back to Djenar’s (2007) categories of senses for di and dalam respectively in (5) and (6) earlier, it seems that di in the Malaysian Malay does not necessarily mean “Event X happens at the same time as time Y.” The use of dalam with time shows more or less the same functions as are stated in ((6h), (6m), and (6n)). Our results further captivate the differences among di and di dalam (e.g., abstract concept, norminalized form, etc.) which have not been listed in the senses earlier. A corpus-based study like this one not only provides discussion of the semantics of these closely-related prepositional concepts, but also enables inference based on distributional data to see what patterns of selectional restriction, if any, are available for each of these concepts.

References

Adler, Silvia. 2008. French Compound Prepositions, Prepositional Locutions and Prepositional Phrases in the Scope of the Absolute Use. Adpositions: Pragmatic, Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives, ed. by Dennis Kurzon and Silvia Adler, 17-35. Anthony, Laurence. (2005). AntConc: Design and Development of a Freeware Corpus

Analysis Toolkit for the Technical Writing Classroom. In the Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference, (IPCC), 729-737.

Blake, Barry, J. 2001. Case. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blust, Robert. 1989. The Adhesive Locative in Austronesian Languages. Oceanic Linguistics.

28 (2): 197-203.

Blust, Robert. 1997. Semantic Change and the Conceptualization of Spatial Relationships in Austronesian Languages. Referring to Space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, ed. by Senft Gunter, 39-52. Oxford: Clarerdon.

Brée, D. S., Smit, R. A. and Werkhoven, J. P. 1990. Translating Temporal Prepositions between Dutch and English. Journal of Semantics. 7: 1-51.

Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. Locative Classifiers in Tongan. Referring to Space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, ed. by Senft Gunter, 287-315. Oxford: Clarerdon. Brugman, Claudia. 1981. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the

Lexicon. New York: Garland.

Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2004. Dalam in Malay: Image Schema Perspective. In Gordon Fulton, Bill Sullivan and Arle Lommel (eds.). LACUS FORUM XXX: Language, Thought and Reality, 147-158. Victoria B.C., Canada: Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States.



以語料庫為基礎之英語與馬來語介系詞詞彙語意分析研究

以語料庫為基礎之英語與馬來語介系詞詞彙語意分析研究

研究成果報告(精簡版)

中 華 民 國 101 年 10 月 29 日

中華民國 101 年 10 月 29 日