English and Lampungnese Relational Processes
Abstract
Abstract: This research is aimed at configuring the English and Lampungnese relational pro- cess and comparing one another. This qualitative research gathered the data from English and Lampungnese lesson books. This research reveals that English and Lampungnese relational clauses demonstrates a similar configuration. Both have relational process and participants in the forms of carrier-attribute and token-value. The English relational process is indicated with copular verbs (become, sound), possessive verbs (have, contain, and consist), auxiliary verb (is, are), and modal (will and should). Furthermore, it is found that the Lampung relational process is also realized by the copular verb ( jadi/dijadiko, iyulah, yakdo, and ngeghupako). Other than a copular word, it is also realized by other relational processes, such as possessive verb (ngedok, tekughuk), modal (dapok), and other forms (sebanding, gegoh, artini, and bumakna). Further, different from English, Lampung relational clause has a unique characteristic. It is found that sometimes the clause just has participants and no process. This phenomenon will not be found in English.
Keywords: clause, carrier-attribute, Lampungnese, relational process, token-value
Abstrak: Penelitian ini diarahkan untuk menelisik konfigurasi proses relasional Bahasa Inggris dan Lampung kemudian membandingkannya satu sama lain. Data penelitian ini dikumpulkan dari buku pelajaran bahasa Inggris dan Lampung. Penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa klausa relasional bahasa Inggris dan Lampung memiliki konfigurasi yang serupa. Keduanya memiliki proses relasional dan partisipan dalam bentuk carrier-attribute dan token-value. Proses rela- sional dalam bahasa Inggris diindikasikan oleh kata kerja kopula (become, sound), kata kerja kepemilikan (have, contain, dan consist), kata kerja bantu (is, are), dan modal (will dan should). Lebih jauh, ditemukan juga bahwa proses relasional dalam bahasa Lampung direalisasikan oleh kata kerja kopula ( jadi/dijadiko, iyulah, yakdo, dan ngeghupako). Selain itu, proses rela- sional juga ditunjukkan oleh penggunaan kata kerja kepemilikan (ngedok dan tekughuk), modal (dapok), dan bentuk lain (sebanding, gegoh, artini, dan bumakna). Kemudian, berbeda dengan bahasa Inggris, klausa relasional dalam bahasa Lampung memiliki karateristik yang unik ka- rena ditemukan bahwa terkadang klausa relasional hanya memiliki partisipan tanpa ada proses. Fenomena ini tidak akan ditemukan dalam bahasa Inggris.
Kata-kata kunci: klausa, carrier-attribute, Bahasa Lampung, proses relasional, token-value
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analyzing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 77-137). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Bardi, M. A. (2008). A systemic function- al description of the grammar of Arabic. Unpublished Dissertation, Linguistics De- partment, Macquarie University.
Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The functional analysis of English (2nded). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Inc.
Caffarel, A. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of French. In A. Caffarel,
J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 77-137). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham, & R.
A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 3-41). London: Palgrave Mcmillan.
Deterding, D. H., & Poedjosoedarmo, G. R. (2001). Grammar of English. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, UK: Continuum.
Emilia, E. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Bandung, Indonesia: Pustaka Jaya.
Ethnologue. (2019). Retrieved fromhttps:// w w w.eth nolog ue.com /cou nt r y/ ID/ languages
Gerot, L., & Wignel, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar (2nded.). Sydney, NSW: GerdStabler.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M.I.M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to func- tional grammar (4th ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & McDonald, E. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, &
C. M. I. M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 305-396). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Hinton, Leanne. (2011). Revitalization of endangered language. In P. K. Austin,&J. Sallabank (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages (pp. 25-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lavis, J., J. Arus, & J. R. Zamorano-Mansil- la. (2010). Systemic functional grammar of Spanish: A contrastive study with English.New York, NY: Continuum.
Lock, G. (2005). Functional English grammar – an introduction for second language teacher (8th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog.In A. Caffarel,
J. R. Martin, &C. M.I.M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: a functional perspective (pp. 255-304). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Prakasam, V. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Telugu. In A. Caffarel,
J. R. Martin & C. M. I. M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 433-478). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Rose, David. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Pitjantjatjara. In
A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 479- 536). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Saragih, A. (2007). Fungsi tekstual dalam wacana: Panduan menulis Rema dan Tema. Medan, Indonesia: Balai Bahasa Medan.
Satun, A. R. et al. (1985). Struktur bahasa Lampung. Jakarta, Indonesia: Pusat Pem- binaandan Pengembangan Bahasa, De- partemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data. London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.
Sneddon, J. N. (1996). Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London, UK: Routledge.
Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research- studying how things work. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Steiner, E., &Teich, E. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of German. In
A. Caffarel, J. R. Martin, & C. M.I.M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 139- 184). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Sujatna, E. T. S. (2012a). Applying systemic functional linguistics to Bahasa Indonesia clause. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 134-146.
Sujatna, E. T. S. (2012b). Sundanese verbs in mental processes: A sytemic functional linguistics apparoach. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 468-476.
Teruya, K. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Japanese. In A. Caffarel,
J. R. Martin, & C. M.I.M Matthiessen(Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 185-254). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Thai, M. D. (2004). Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Vietnamese. In A. Caffarel,
J. R. Martin, & C. M. I. M Matthiessen (Eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective (pp. 397-431). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. London, UK: Routledge.
Udin, N., et al. (1992). Tata bahasa Lampung dialek Pesisir. Jakarta, Indonesia: Proyek Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah Lampung.
Wiratno, T. (2017). Pengantar ringkas lin- guistik sistemik fungsional. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Pustaka Pelajar.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.