Relationship of meanings in sasak language
Review of language adjectival phrases
Keywords:
Structural linguistics, Meanings relationship, Adjectival phrase, Sasak languageAbstract
The meaning that appears in the adjectival phrase of Sasak language is caused by the relationship between the elements of the phrase. The elements that form the phrase are core and modifier elements. The discussed problem is the relationship of meaning found in the adjectival phrase of Sasak language. This study aims to describe the relationships meaning found in Sasak language adjectival phrases. This research used structural linguistic theory. Observation and library methods are used in collecting data; these methods are aided by recording, transcription, and translation techniques. Data analysis used descriptive synchronic and distributional methods, aided by paraphrasing technique. In presenting the results of data analysis, formal and informal methods are used and supported by inductive and deductive techniques. Based on the results of discussion, it can be concluded that Sasak language adjectival phrase has eleven meaning relationships. The eleven relationships of meaning are meaning of degrees, meaning of aspects, meaning of increasingly, meaning of choice, meaning of addition, meaning of reciprocal, meaning of plainness, meaning of seriousness, meaning of comparison, meaning of ability, and meaning of frequency.
Downloads
References
Barker, C., Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (2019). Possessives and relational nouns. Semantics-noun phrases and verb phrases, 177-203.
Chaer, A. (2003). Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Chaer. A. (2009). Sintaksis Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Rineka Cipta.
Culbertson, J., Schouwstra, M., & Kirby, S. (2020). From the world to word order: deriving biases in noun phrase order from statistical properties of the world. Language, 96(3), 696-717.
Duff, M. C., Covington, N. V., Hilverman, C., & Cohen, N. J. (2020). Semantic memory and the hippocampus: Revisiting, reaffirming, and extending the reach of their critical relationship. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 471.
Mamatov, A. (2019). Phraseo-Semantic Field and Its Semantic-Pragmatic Study. Theoretical & Applied Science, (5), 21-23.
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130299.
Parera. J.D. (2004). Teori Semantik. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Philosophical papers, 2.
Putrayasa, Ida Bagus. (2009). Tata Kalimat Bahasa Indonesia. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama.
Samarin, William J. (1988). Ilmu Bahasa Lapangan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Speas, M. J., & Speas, M. (1990). Phrase structure in natural language (Vol. 21). Springer Science & Business Media.
Sudaryanto. (1993). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta : Duta Wacana
Thoir, Nazir. (1986). “Tata Bahasa Sasak”. Jakarta: Proyek Pengembangan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. University Press.
Van Ommen, S., Boll-Avetisyan, N., Larraza, S., Wellmann, C., Bijeljac-Babic, R., Höhle, B., & Nazzi, T. (2020). Language-specific prosodic acquisition: A comparison of phrase boundary perception by French-and German-learning infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, 104108.
Verhaar, J.M.W. (2001). Asas-Asas Linguistik Umum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Pres.
