CC BY
438
УДК 81.362
I Gede Budasic
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF VERB PHRASES IN INDONESIAN AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGE BASIC SENTENCES
This article analyzes the similarities and differences of verb phrase constructions of Indonesian and Russian. This study shows that the positive sentence construction in both languages is Noun Phrase+Verb Phrase (NP+VP). The Noun Phrase + Predicate (NP+Pred) sentence constructions in Indonesian always contain verb (V) or copula (which functions as verb), but it is not like that in Russian. Time signals in the sentence constructions in Russian influence the verb forms but they are nonexistence in Indonesian. For negative marker (Neg), the word tidak is added to VP or to Pred in Indonesian. In Russian, the word ne is added to VP or to Pred. However, when a copula adalah is presented in Indonesian nominal positive sentences then in the Russian it has no match. The interrogative sentence in Indonesian is constructed by adding the word ‘apakah’ for yes-no question in front of its declarative form. In Russian the interrogative simply requires intonation patterns for the ‘yes-no’ questions.
Key words: contrastive analysis, noun phrases, verb phrase, copula, negative marker.
Сравнительный анализ глагольных выражений в простых предложениях в индонезийском и русском языках. И ГЕДЕ БУДАСИ (факультет филологии и гуманитарных дисциплин, Г анеш-ский педагогический университет, Сингарайя, Бали, Республика Индонезия).
В статье анализируются сходства и различия в построении глагольных фраз в индонезийском и русском языках. Данное исследование показывает, что конструкция утвердительных предложений в обоих языках состоит из именной фразы + глагольной фразы. В индонезийском языке в предложение, состоящее из именной фразы + сказуемого, всегда входит глагол или глагол-связка, который выполняет функции глагола, в русском языке это не обязательно так. Показатели времени в предложениях в русском языке влияют на форму глаголов, в индонезийском же языке они не существуют. Для выражения отрицания в индонезийском языке к глагольной фразе или сказуемому добавляется слово «tidak», в аналогичной ситуации в русском языке употребляется частица «не». Однако в русском языке, например, нет аналога глаголу-связке «adalah», который используется в назывных утвердительных предложениях в индонезийском языке. Простые вопросительные предложения в индонезийском языке образуются путем добавления к повествовательному предложению слова «apakah», в русском языке зачастую достаточно лишь интонации для превращения простого предложения в общий вопрос.
Ключевые слова: сравнительный анализ, именные фразы, глагольные фразы, глагол-связка, показатель отрицания.
Introduction
Every language on earth is unique. Two languages used in two different places must be different from each other; however, it is likely that grammatical structures of two languages have similarities in some aspects [8]. The differences and the similarities of grammatical structures of languages are significant and can be used to determine the strategy in teaching languages. The common term used in applied linguistics to compare two languages, the target language in language teaching and the student’s mother tongue, is contrastive analysis.
This research is an attempt to reveal the grammatical structures of the Verb Phrases (VP) of Indonesian language and compare them with the Russian VPs. Russian language is a language used in Russian
Federation and it is a natural language that has been described grammatically and practically but has rarely been compared in written form with Indonesian. This language is widely used as a means of communication between people either in cities as well as small villages through out the country. In spite of the fact that this is a language of widespread communication among Russians, it still adapts some technical vocabulary from other languages, especially from English, so that loan words could complete the most recent terms which are not available in Russian [10, 12].
The main aim of this research is not to describe the grammar of one language but it is an attempt to set up a rule as the result of a contrastive analysis of two languages. This research is an attempt to reveal
I GEDE BUDASIC, Faculty of Language and Art, Ganesha University of Education, Singaraja Bali-Republic of Indonesia. E-mail: yaysurya8@yahoo.com © H rege EygacH, 2012
the grammatical structures of the Verb Phrases (VP) of Russian language and compare them with the Indonesian VPs. Two languages used in two different places must be different from each other; however, it is likely that grammatical structures of two languages have similarities in some aspects. According to Kartawinata, the differences and the similarities of grammatical structures of languages are significant and can be used to determine the strategy in teaching languages. Kartawinata also mentions that contrastive analysis is the common term used in applied linguistics to compare two languages, the target language in language teaching, and the student’s mother tongue. Most theories of language learning and acquisition mentioned that contrastive grammar is one of the best references a teacher can have to overcome students’ language mistakes [6]. As an important means to create, select materials, and make material design for foreign language teaching in class, contrastive grammar can be used to avoid making grammatical mistakes on the part of the students as well as to minimize the effort of the teacher in correcting the student’s errors. It provides the clue to the teacher when student’s errors are caused by the interference of their native language [7]. Fries [5] mentions that the most efficient material for teaching a language is the material which is designed on the basis of contrastive analysis [7] emphasizes that the result of a comparative study between one language and another can become an essential medium in studying a language. This fact is caused by the ease created as the result of contractive analysis for the language teacher to detect the differences and similarities between the target language and the student’s native language.
Interference of the students’ mother tongue is not the only reason to undertake contrastive analysis as a preliminary procedure to teaching a language but material design for teaching will come very handy too. If the teacher of Indonesian knows his/her student’s native language structures it would be easier for him/ her to design the material for the teaching of Indonesian for the students. Which part of the structures needs emphasis in the teaching can be determined from the contrastive grammar [6, 7].
There are three purposes of contrastive analysis. They are: to search for differences and similarities, to predict possible problems in second of foreign language learning/acquisition, to be used as the basis of material design and selection in teaching [14]. This statement is in relation to a linguistic principle which says that languages are different. One of the implications of this principle is that no two languages of a different nature can have exactly the same structural patterns. Contrastive analysis was developed from the contrasting features in sound systems of languages which linguists found remarkable in the past. Although
all languages draw from the same universal set of phonetic features, individual languages can differ in the sets of features that make up their phonemes. Thus the widely differing sounds occurring in the world’s languages are actually based in large part on various combinations drawn from a relatively small, restricted set of phonetic features. So is the case with the other grammatical component of languages in the world.
The structural patterns of sentences are surely combinations of the small, restricted set of the word classes. However, the sets and positions of features that make up their sentences are different. The phenomena which cause the difference is worthy of study to become a separate scientific analysis in linguistics [2, 7].
Method
This study applied a qualitative method. The data of Russian language are primary data elicited by means of interview with the selected informants who were native speakers of Russian language. This kind of method in descriptive linguistics is known as elicitation, the method of obtaining reliable linguistic data from speakers (informants), either actual utterances or judgments about utterances [3] (Crystal, 2007). The data obtained by means of elicitation were analyzed using the common approach known in descriptive linguistics. The Russian language used in this study consists of sentences. No word list was employed as the data since the intention of this research is to get the structural patterns related to their Indonesian equivalent [9, 11]. The VP structures which were investigated in this study were in relation to other phrases in the sentence. The data of Indonesian VP structures are secondary ones taken from Indonesian textbooks which reflect native speakers’ Indonesian [7].
Phrase structure models are used to describe the model grammar of Russian language VPs. Indonesian VPs used to make the comparison are secondary data from grammar description used by Indonesian grammarians such Abdul [1]. It should be noted that although generative-transformational models are used, the transformational rule is not applied.
Devices of Linguistic Analysis is done by means of generative transformational model, however, the transformation of sentences is not shown because the intention of the study is only to compare VPs in both languages. Indonesian VPs which have an established grammatical system are taken as the model to fit into the Russian language VPs [13]. VPs of Russian language with no VP models in Indonesian are treated as separate structures and new models based on generative-transformational grammar are formed to accommodate them. The obtained data were analyzed descriptively into different sub-sections: Basic sentences containing VP, VP in positive sentences, VP in negative sentences,
and VP in interrogative sentences [7]. To facilitate the readers who don’t speak Russia the data of Russian language in this article are written using Latin alphabet.
Findings and Discussion
In order to get a better idea of how the two languages behave, this part of the report is divided into different sub-sections, they are: Basic sentences containing VP, VP in positive sentences, VP in negative sentences, and VP in interrogative sentences.
VP in Basic Sentences
In a descriptive way of analyzing a system of a language, we always start by looking at the data [4]. The first data taken are Indonesian whose basic rules have already been set up. In general, basic sentences in Indonesian can be formulated as NP+VP. The following are some sentences in Indonesian which use NP+VP construction and can be considered for the purpose of this analysis.
NP VP
Saya bicara
I talk
Saya menonton film
I watch film
Mereka menulis sebuah karangan kemaren
They wrote a composition yesterday
Mereka menulis pelan-pelan
They write slowly
Mereka tanpak senang
They look happy
Looking at the example above, it seems that VP in Indonesian is a common feature of the language. The VPs in (1)-(5) consist of different elements, however, there is always a verb (V) in every of them. So we can see that the VP in Indonesian sentences in the example above can be formulated in this way:
VP
V
V + NP
V + AP
V + Adjp
Now we have a complete rule for VP in Indonesian basic sentences. Indonesian basic sentence always contain V. On the other hand, Russian language basic sentences do not always contain V. The basic sentence is not always NP + VP but it is more common to use the formula NP + Predicate because the predicate (Pred) may be a NP or AP or Adjp. However, since our concern here is with VP construction only, Pred which contain V will be analyzed. The data are provided in the following examples.
NP VP
Rebyonok krichit.
‘The child shouts’
Oni smotryat televizor kazhdiy vecher.
‘They watch TV every night’
On yest dvazdi
‘He eats twice’
On yest v kitayskom restorane
He eats in the Chinese restaurant?
Ona vigliadit schastlivoi
‘She looks happy’
Ya perevozhu pis’ma kazhdyi den
‘I translate letters everyday’
Ya perevodilpis’ma vchera
‘I translated letters yesterday’
Ya budu perevodit’ pis’ma zavtra
‘I will translate letters tomorrow’
Ona prevoditpis’ma kazhdyi den
‘She translates letters everyday’
Ona perevodilapis’ma vchera
‘She translated letters yesterday’
Ona budet perevodit pis’ma zavtra
‘She will translate letters tomorrow’
Consists of VPs which can be formulated as
follows:
VP —►
V + AjdP
V
V + NP
V + AP
We may also set up the rule in the following ways: rNPl
VP
V +
AP
Adj
This means that VP in basic sentences in both languages is the same. However, it should be noted that Russian language basic sentences here only those which contain VP because there are other basic sentences which do not contain a VP. The other important note is that time signals in the sentence constructions in Russian influence the verb forms but they are nonexistence in Indonesian.
The described structures of the VP in both languages allows to conclude that relatively they are different.
VP in Positive Sentences
The description of VP in positive sentences (declarative) has already been mentioned above. However, the Russian and the Indonesian language constructions for equality with be (copula) are completely different. If Indonesian language has the be-construction for nominal sentences realized as copula adalah, Russian has none of these constructions. So sentences containing VP with Copula + NP such as the following:
NP Copula Pred( NP/AdjP/AP)
Dia adalah seorang petani
He is a farmer
Mereka adalah guru
‘They are teachers’
have no equivalent constructions in Russian language. The Russian language structure simply combines a NP with another NP such as:
NP Copula Pred( NP/AdjP/AP)
On fermer
‘He is a farmer’
Oni uchitelya
‘They are teachers’
VP in Negative Sentences
The Indonesian negative sentences where a V is involved requires the presence of ‘tidak’ or ‘bukan’ as a negative marker (Neg). The following are some examples:
NP Neg VP
Saya tidak makan roti
Kami tidal membeli radia
Kamu tidak menulis artikel
Dia tidak menjual rumah
There is similarity between Indonesian and Russian in constructing negative sentences. In Indonesian, tidak is simply added as a Neg to the V. In Russian language construction ne is added as a Neg to the V, such as:
NP Neg VP
Ya ne slishu ego
‘I can not hear him’
On ne govorit po-Indoneziyski
‘He does not speak Indonesian’
Oni ne nenavidyat nas
‘They do not hate us’
Mi ne stroyli universitet
‘We did not build the university’
In order to be able to see the similarity between the two constructions we will show them in strings as follows:
Indonesian negatives:
Neg + V
Russian language Negative:
Neg + V
VP in Interrogative Sentences
The interrogative marker in Indonesian language is simply constructed by adding the question word ‘apakah in front of declarative sentences. The use of ‘apakah ’ in Indonesian interrogative sentences is the most common in ‘yes-no’ questions. The following are some examples:
Interrogetive marker NP VP
Apakah dia mengajr gramatika hari ini?
‘Does he teach grammar today?’
Apakah mereka membawa kamera?
‘Do they bring camera?’
The word ‘apakah in these examples is nonexistent in Russian language. Interrogatives in Russian language simply require intonation patterns for the ‘yes-no’ questions. See the following examples:
Question Marker NP VP
Vi vstrechaete ego
Vi vstrechaete ego?
‘Do you meet him?’
Ti vstrechaesh ego.
Ti vstrechaesh ego?
Do you (single) meet him?’
Ona izuchaet grammatiku Russkogo yazika.
Ona izuchaet grammatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Does she learn grammar of Russian language?’
On izuchaet grammatiku Russkogo yazika.
On izuchaet grammatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Does he learn grammar of Russian language?’
Vi izuchaete grammatiku Russkogo yazika.
Vi izuchaete grammatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Do you learn grammar of Russian language?’
Ya izuchau grammatiku Russkogo yazika.
Ya izuchau gramatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Do I learn grammar of Russian language?’
Mi izuchaem grammatiku Russkogo yazika.
Mi izuchaem grammatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Do we learn grammar of Russian language?’
Oni izuchaut gramatiku Russkogo yazika.
Oni izuchaut gramatiku Russkogo yazika?
‘Do they learn grammar of Russian language?’
Implication of these Study Findings to Language Teaching
The findings in this study provide clue for the teachers of Indonesia for Russian students. Based on the study findings they may get comprehensive idea of how the VPs of the two languages behave. Teachers of Indonesian can focus their teaching to Russian students at least based on four different sub-sections concerning the Indonesia VP and Russian VP. In this case, the teaching materials can be arranged from: basic sentences containing VP, VP in positive sentences, VP in negative sentences, and VP in interrogative sentences. In their teaching, both Indonesian teacher for teaching Russian and Russian teachers for teaching Indonesian students need to consider the following cue their teaching learning process.
First, as far as VP of basic sentences is concerned where V appears, both Indonesia and Russian teachers need to emphasize their teaching that the basic rule of sentence constructions in the two languages has different formula. In the basic positive sentence constructions, the two languages have the same formula NP+VP, both languages do not have grammatical categories of V which show time, duration, perfection of actions which are normally found in English. In addition to NP+VP construction, both languages also have NP+Pred construction. Pred in Indonesian always contain V, but it is not always like that in Russian. This construction also needs to be emphasized in their teaching.
Second, it is important for the teachers to help the students to understand that NP+Pred construction in Indonesian requires the existence of copula ‘adalah', especially in formal style and they should explain that it can be omitted in informal style. The teachers should
emphasize that in Russian language the word which is equivalent with the copula adalah is not recognized. For NP+Pred construction, the teachers need to mention to their students that the Russian language structure simply combines a NP with another NP/Ajdp/ AP.
Third, the teachers need to make the students aware that both Indonesian and Russian negative sentences where a V is involved do not require the presence of an Aux if negative sentences are made. Both languages only require a Neg without an Aux. In this case, Indonesian constructions use tidak as Neg, whereas the Russian language constructions simply add ne as a Neg to the V.
Finally, the teachers should make the students know that interrogative marker in Indonesian is just adding word ‘apakah in front of the constructions of the positive sentences and the word ‘apakah ’ in Indonesian interrogatives is the most common in ‘yes-no’ questions. The equivalent word ‘apakah' is nonexistent in Russian language. Therefore, the teachers should make the students know that the equivalent word ‘apakah does not exist in Russian language. In this case, the interrogatives in Russian language simply require intonation patterns for the ‘yes-no’ question.
Since contrastive grammar is one of the best references a teacher can have to overcome students’ language mistakes the teacher of Indonesian for Russian students need to identify the similarities and differences of the VPs forms in these two languages. Creating and selecting teaching materials arranged from the similar to different aspects of VPs of the two languages can avoid making grammatical mistakes on the part of the students. In this way, it will help the teacher to minimize his/her efforts in correcting the students’ errors. With such arrangement, the teacher has prepared themselves to provide the clue when student’s errors are caused by the interference of their native language [6, 7].
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Abdul C. Sintaksis Bahasa Indonesia: Pendekatan Proses. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2009.
2. Chao R.D. Some Aspects of the Relation between Theory and Method // PL. Garvin. Method and Theory in Linguistics. The Hague-Paris: Mouton Press, 2006.
3. Crystal D.A. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 2007.
4. Fernandez I.Y. Subkelompok Bahasa Jayapura dan Implikasinya terhadap Status Subkelompok ahasa Melanesia serta Filum Papua dan Nugini // Makalah Seminar International Austronesia V Denpasar, 2010.
5. Fries C.C. Teaching and Learning Indonesian as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1945.
6. Gleason H.A. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. N. Y.: Holt Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1961.
7. Kartawinata H. Contrastive Analysis of Verb Phrases in Indonesianand Tetun Language Basic Sentences // Issues in Indonesiana Foreign Language and Sociolinguistics VOI. Malang: Ma Chung Press, 2010.
8. Lado R. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1955.
9. Mashun O. Metode Penelitian Bahasa; Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada, 2007.
10. Nanang S.F. Buku Percakapan Rusia-Indonesia. Jakarta: Kesaint Blanc, 2009.
11. Nani S.K. Pemanfatan Korpus dalam Pengajaran Bahasa // PELBA XIII. 18. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian Bahasa dan Budaya Unika Atmajaya, 2007.
12. Salihen M. Kencan dalam Bahasa Rusia. Jakarta: Kesaint
Blanc, 2009.
13. Trank M.T. Modern English: a Practical Reference Guide. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2006.
14. Van Eks T. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of Foreign Language. London: Walter de Gruyter, 2007.
152 ГУМАНИТАРНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ В ВОСТОЧНОЙ СИБИРИ И НА ДАЛЬНЕМ ВОСТОКЕ • № 1 • 2012
