Inalienable and Alienable Possession of Body-Part Lexemes in Acehnese: A Case Study of the Pidie Dialect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1504.22Keywords:
inalienability, alienability, body-parts, RRG, Pidie dialect of the Acehnese languageAbstract
The concept of inalienable and alienable possession of body parts highlights unique linguistic phenomena frequently used by Acehnese speakers, particularly in the Pidie dialect. These phenomena exhibit distinct control within clause structures, especially regarding alienable possession. Although similar cases have been explored in various languages, they have not been thoroughly examined in Acehnese. Previous studies have not identified significant differences in inalienability, particularly concerning the semantic role of body parts as autonomous agents. This study aims to systematically investigate the possession of body parts in Acehnese, focusing on these distinctions as the primary objective of the research. Employing a qualitative approach, the study uses descriptive methods to analyze grammatical phenomena based on Van Valin's Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) theory (2005). The research identifies relevant parameters, including the use of Acehnese prefixes teu- and meu-, adjectives, and verb types as predicates in sentence structures involving body parts. Data were collected through observations and interviews. The findings indicate that certain body parts can function as both autonomous and non-autonomous subjects across different sentence structures. Furthermore, the study reveals that these two models of body-part possession are influenced by cultural norms and are expressed in both normative and phraseological clauses. By exploring the role and significance of inalienable possession, this research provides valuable insights into how Acehnese speakers conceptualize and express body-part-related speech patterns, contributing to a deeper understanding of the language and its cultural context.
References
Amberber, M. (2020). The conceptual semantics of alienable possession in Amharic. In K. Mullan, B. Peeters, & L. Sadow (Eds.), Studies in ethnopragmatics, cultural semantics, and intercultural communication: Ethnopragmatics and semantic analysis (pp. 207–222). Springer Nature.
Ameka, F. (1996). Body parts in Ewe grammar. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 783-840). Mouton de Gruyter.
Armstrong, G. (2024). The roots and structures of possessive noun classes. Isogloss, 10(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.461
Asyik, A. G. (1987). A contextual grammar of Acehnese sentence. The University of Michigan.
Bugaeva, A., Nichols, J., & Bickel, B. (2022). Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific. Linguistic Typology, 26(1), 43–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2079
Burns, A. (2009). Action research. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 112-134). Palgrave Macmillan.
Burung, W. (2019). Alienable and inalieanable nouns in Wano. Linguistik Indonesia, 36(1), 37–65. https://doi.org/10.26499/li.v36i1.72
Chappell, H., & McGregor, W. (Eds.) (1996). The grammar of inalienability A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation. Mouton de Gruyter.
Cowan, H. K. J. (1969). Les Oppositions “aliénable: inaliénable” et “animé: inanimé” en mélanésien. Word, 25(1-3), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1969.11435558
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed.. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 3-24). Palgrave Macmillan.
Durie, M. (1985). A Grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Foris Publications Holland.
Durie, M., Daud, B., & Hasan, M. (1994). Acehnese. In C. Goddard & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Semantic and lexical universal theory and empirical findings (pp. 171–201). John Benjamins Publishing.
Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Gebregziabher, K. (2012). The alienable-inalienable asymmetry: Evidence from Tigrinya. Selected Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference on African Languages, 2010, pp. 161–182.
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). “It’s mine!”. Re-thinking the conceptual semantics of ‘possession’ through NSM. Language Sciences, 56, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.002
Iskandar, D., Mulyadi, & Samad, I. A. (2020). The semantics of body parts in Acehnese: A comparison to English. Proceedings of the International Conference of Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental and Ramification Researches ICOSTEERR, pp. 1152-1158. https://doi.org/10.5220/0010068611521158
Jeoung, H. (2018). Possessors move through the edge, too. Glossa, 3(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.478
Legate, J. A. (2013). Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language by Linguistic Society of America, 88(3), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0069
Legate, J. A. (2014). Voice and v lesson from Acehnese. The MIT Press.
McKay, G. R. (1996). Body parts, possession marking and nominal classes in Ndjébbana. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 293–326). Mouton de Gruyter.
Neumann, D. (1996). The dative and the grammar of body parts in German. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 745-780). Mouton de Gruyter.
Ovsjannikova, M. (2020). Oblique and nominative nominal possessors in Forest Enets. ESUKA – JEFUL, 11(2), 57–98. https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2020.11.2.03
Rooryck, J. (2022). Reconsidering inalienable possession with definite determiners in French. Isogloss, 8(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.233
Rose, F., & Van Linden, A. (2023). Introduction: The limits of the explanatory potential of the alienability contrast. Linguistics, 61(6), 1341–1363. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0015
Suárez-Palma, I. (2024). Inalienable possession (and lack thereof) in Spanish. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 17(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1515/shll-2024-2005
Tarigan, B., Sofyan, R., Zein, T. T., & Rosa, R. N. (2022). Cultural values associated with the use of ecolexicon “bamboo” in Karonese proverbs. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(10), 2106-2116. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1210.18
Tim Balai Bahasa Banda Aceh. (2012). Inilah bahasa-bahasa di Aceh [These are languages in Aceh]. Balai Bahasa Banda Aceh.
Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge University Press.
Vries, L. De, & Aboebakar, H. (1932). Meutia: Seunambat lhee saboh nang. Djeumba Peutama ['Pearls: A sequel to three siblings. Part I]. J.B. Wolters` Uitgevers Maatschappij N.V.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wierzbicka, A. (2002). English causative constructions in an ethnosyntactic perspective: Focusing on let. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp. 162-204). Oxford University Press.
