THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SYNTACTIC AND SEMANTIC: A STUDY OF LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY

Received: 2019-03-27 Accepted: 2019-11-27 Published: October 2019 Volume:3 Issue: 2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33019/lire.v3i2.49 This research entitled “The Relationship between Syntactic and Semantic : A Study of Linguistic Typology.” is intended to give a clear descriptions related to the relationship between syntactic and semantic on some languages.This research was focused on some clause structures typologycally either syntactically or semantically. The scope of this research was more focused on the transitive verbs to have more descriptions related to the relationship between syntactic and semantic to find out whether a clause structure on syntactic can be accepted or cannot be accepted semantically. The theory of linguistics typology was appliedin this research because the principle of linguistics typpology is to find out the similarities and the differences among all the type of languages universally. The introspective reflexive and the descriptive method were applied to gain the data in this research and the qualitative descriptive method was applied to analyse the data. KEYWORDS


1.INTRODUCTION
Talking about linguistics typology, Moravcsik (2013) divides linguistics into four main types such as Phonology typology, Morphology typology, Syntax typology and semantic typology. Comrie 1988b also explains that typology linguistics is a study of language classification of domain. Based on the statements above, this research was more focused on the relationship between syntactic and semantic structures. Brown and Miller (1994:64) also state that the category Pred offers a unique environment for the classification of copular verbs. It also enables us to identify which NPs' are predicate, information we need, in English, to ensure that predicate NPs agree in number with the subjects of the sentence, and in other languages to make the correct statement about the agreement of adjectives. Besides, Maclin (1994:35) also says that the subject and main verb of a clause must agree in number. Use a singular verb with a singular noun or pronoun or with an uncountable (mass) noun. Use a plural verb with a plural noun or pronoun. Countable nouns that indicate more than one person or thing are plural in English. The research was more focused on the transitive verbs that would be expanded on Subject-PredicateAgreement, Subject-ObjectAgreement and Predicate-ObjectAgreement. Typologycally, there are some languages that have Subject-PredicateAgreement and they have been discussed by a numbers of linguists, however there are not many linguistics lovers who focus deeply on Subject-Object Disagreement, Predicate-ObjectDisagreement and Subject-Predicate-Object Disagreement because most the researchers just focused their researches to the Subject-PredicateAgreement. In this short article, it would be interesting to analyse them typologycally either on syntactically or semantically. The data used in this Typologycally, English is known as an acussative language with SVO word order canonically, with OSV alternation.The sentence on the example (1) consists of three constituents syntactically. Based on the grammatical category, cows is a (NP), eat is a (V) and every day is a (NP). Syntactically, cows function as the SUB, eat functions as the PRED, and every day functions as the Time Modifier. The data on the sentence above can be seen that cows are in the plural form and they are consindered as the general animal therefore the definite article is not used as the modifier. There is not any morphem added on the predicate eat because the subject cows categorized in plural (NP). The data on (2) also consists of three constituents syntactically. Based on the grammatical category, The cow (NP)functions asthe SUB, eats (VP)functions as thePREDand every day is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the time modifier. The sentence on (3) consists of three constituents syntactically. The cow is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the subject, eats is a verb and it functions as the PRED, every day is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the time modifier. The bound morpheme "S"must be added to thePRED eat-s because the cow is the third singular SUB, therefore it is called as the SUB and PRED agreement. The data on the sentence (4) above consists of two main constituents syntactically.The horses(NP) functions as the SUB and writes (VP)functionsasthe PRED. From the data, they can be concluded that the subject can agree with the PRED syntactically, however the SUB does not agree with the verb semantically.The data on the sentence (5) also consists of two main constituents. Based on the grammatical category, the horse is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB syntactically and the verb phrase cooks (VP)functions as the PRED. Of the data, it can be concluded that based on the syntactic function, the subject agrees with the PRED, however they cannot be accepted semantically because a horse (NP)cannot do the cooking activity because it is a non-human.
C. The Subject-Object Disagreement of Transitive Verbs in English Language (EL)

*The cow eats meat in the field. NP eat meat pp *' The cow eats meat in the field'
The data on the sentence (6) consists of three constituents. Based on the grammatical categories, tigers (NP)functions as the SUB, eat (VP) functions as the PRED and grass functions as the OBJ syntactically. Grammatically, the SUB and the PRED agree one to another, however the SUB does not agree with the OBJ semantically.The data on the sentence (7) consist of three main constituents. The cows (NP) functions as the SUB, eats (VP)functions as the PRED and in the field (PP)functions as the place modifier syntactically. Grammatically, the sentences on the data (6) (7) are correct, however each SUB does not agree with the OBJ semantically.

*A goat drinks bread. NP drink bread *'A goat drinks bread'
The data on the sentence (8) also consists of three constituents syntactically. Cows (NP)phrasal category and it functions as the SUB, eats (VP)functions as the PREDand water (N)functions as the OBJ. The data on the sentence (9) also consists of three constituents syntactically. A goat (NP) functions as the SUB, drinks (VP)functions as the PRED and bread noun (N) functions as the OBJ. From the data above, it can be seen that the SUB agrees with the PRED, however the PRED does not agree with the OBJ semantically.
E. The Subject-Predicate Disagreement of Transitive Verbs in Makasae language (ML)

*Kuda laa kereke.
Typologycally, Makasae language (ML) belongs to Trans new Guinea and also known as an Accusative language with SOV word order or with an alternation as OSV. The data on (10) also consists of two main constituents. Based on the grammatically category, kuda (horse) (laa plural marking)is a noun phrase (NP) and functions as the SUB. Laa functions asthe modifier and behaves as the plural marking because Makasae language (ML) is known as postmodifier and not premodifier. Kereke (write) is a verb and it functions as the PRED. From the data, it can be seen that the SUB can agree with the PRED based on the sentence element, however the SUB does not agree with the verb semantically because kuda (horse) is a non-human. The data on the sentence (11) also consists of two main constituents syntactically. Based on the grammatical category Bibi u (a goat) is a noun (NP)andit functions as the SUB, tina (cook) is a verb (V)and it functions as the PRED. From the data, it can be seen that the noun phrase (NP) bibi u (a goat) does not agree with the Verb (V) tina (cook) because the SUB is a non-human. The data can be concluded that all noun phrases (NP) can be the SUB syntactically, however there must be any predicate that can agree with the certain noun phrase (NP) that posts the SUB position. The sentence on (12) grammatically consists of three constituents. Liaun laa (the lions) belong to a noun phrase(NP)and theyfunctions as the SUB. Laa (plural marking) functions as the modifier, rou (grass) is noun (N)and it functions as the OBJ and nawa (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED. Syntactically.The SUB liaun (lions) disagree with the OBJ rou (grass) because as we know that liaun(lions)are categotized as carnivora animals and not as herbivora animals therefore the SUB disagrees with the OBJ Semantically. The data on the sentence (13) also consists of three constituents. Grammatically, Bibi u(a goat) is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB, u (as an indefinite article) and it functions as the modifier, seu (meat) is a noun (N) and it functions as the object, nawa(eat) is a verb and it functions as the PRED. Makasae language is known as a postmodifier and not a premodifier, therefore all kinds of modifiers must be put after the head of the noun. The data on (13) also shows that the SUB disagrees with the OBJ semantically because bibi(goat) is a herbivora and not as a carnivora.
The data on the sentence (14) consists of three main constituents syntactically. Bibi u(a goat) is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB, u (is a definite article) and it functions as thepostmodifier of a noun, paun (bread) is a noun (N) and it functions as the OBJ, gehe(drink) is a verb (V) and it functions as the OBJ. From the data, it can be concluded that the PRED disagrees with the OBJ semantically because the PRED gehe (drink) must agree with the liquid things. The data on the sentence (15) constituently also consists of three main constituents. Arabaw laa is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB, laa(plural postmodifier), ira (N) and it functions as the OBJ, nawa (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the main PRED. From the data, it can be seen that the PRED nawa (eat) refers to drink grammatically can be accepted in Makasae language (ML) especially for Quelicai dialect only, however nawa cannot be applied instead of drink in other dialects speakers of (ML) such as Ossu, Laga, Loroo and watulari. Typologycally, Tetun Terik (TT) is also an Accusative language with SVO word order and with OSV word order and it belongs to an Austronesian language. (TT) is spoken in some places such as in Atambua, west Timor and Viqueque. Canonically,the word order of TT is the same as Tetun Dili (TD), however (TD) does not have any case marking like (TT). The data on the sentences (16), (17), (18). (19) and (20) show that there are SUB and PRED agreement among the data above.The data on (16) consists of three main constituents syntactically. Ha'u (I) is a pronoun and it functions as the SUB, ka (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED, hetu (rice) is a noun (N) and it functions as the OBJ. Based on the Grammatical category, ha'u(I) is a first singular pronoun, therefore it must agree with the PRED ka (eat).The data on the sentence(17) also shows that o(you) is a second person singular pronoun and it functions as the SUB, ma (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED, paun(bread) is a noun (N) and it functions as the OBJ.From the data, it can be seen that the SUB pronoun o(you) must agree with the PRED ma. The sentence on the data (18) shows that nia (s/he belongs to the third singular pronoun and it functions as the SUB, na (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED, dosi (cake) is a noun and it functions as the OBJ. From the data, it can be seen that the SUB pronoun nia (s/he must agree with the PRED na (eat).The data on the sentence (19) shows that ita (we) belongs to the first person plural and it functions as the SUB, ha (eat) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED, modo (vegetables) is a noun (N) and it functions as the object. From the data, it can be seen that the SUB pronoun ita (we) must agree with the PRED ha (eat). The data on the sentence (20) shows that sira (they) belongs to a noun (N) and it functions as the SUB, ra (eat) is verb (V) and it functions as the PRED, paun (bread) is a noun (N) and it functions as the OBJ. In this case the SUB sira (they) must agree with the PRED ra (eat). The data on the sentence (21) shows that kuda sira(horses) is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB, sira is a plural marking and it functions as the modifierbecause (TT) is also known as a post-modifier. Hakerek (write) is a Verb (V) and it functions as the PRED. The data above shows that the SUB disagrees with the PRED because the SUB is a non-human that can not do any certain action verbs that can be done by the humans. The data on the sentence above is acceptable syntactically, however it is unacceptable semantically. The data on the sentence (22) also showed that karau ida (a cow) is a noun phrase (NP) and it functions as the SUB, tuku (punches) is a verb (V) and it functions as the PRED. The data shows that the SUB disagrees with the PRED either because karau(cow) is a non-human and it cannot do any certain action verbs as humans.

I. The Subject-Predicate Disagreement of Transitive Verbs in Tetun Terik
J. The Subject-Object Disagreement of Transitive Verbs in Tetun Terik Language (TTL) makan(eat), rumput (grass) is a noun (N). Syntactically, SE-ekor functions as the modifier, harimau functions as the SUB, makan functions as the PRED, and rumputfunctions as the OBJ. From the analysis, it can be seen that the SUB disagrees with the OBJ because harimau is categorized as the carnivora and not as a herbivora. The data on the sentence (31) shows that sapi (cow) is a noun (N), makan (eat) is a verb, daging is a noun (N). Based on the grammatical function, sapi functions as the SUB, makan functions as the PRED and daging functions as the OBJ. From the data, it can be seen that the SUB disagrees with the OBJ because sapi is categorized as a herbivora and not a carnivora. The data on the sentence (33) above consists of three main constituents. Grammatically, SE-ekor sapi (a cow) is (NP), se-(a /one), makan (eat) is a verb (V), air (water). Syntactically, SE-ekor functions as the modifier, sapi functions as the SUB, makan functions as the PRED, water functions as the object. Data on the (34) also consists of three main constituents. Grammatically, kita (we) is a (pronoun), drink is a verb (V), and nasi (rice) is a noun (N). Syntactically, kita functions as the SUB, drink functions as the PRED, and nasi functions as the OBJ. From the analysis, it can be seen that the PRED makan disagrees with the OBJ water in (BI) semantically because the PRED makan must be followed by a non-liquid item. Then, the data on the sentence (35) also shows that the PRED minum disagrees with the OBJ rice semantically because the PRED minum must be followed by a liquid thing and not a non-liquid thing.

CONCLUSION
Based on four languages used as the data in this research such as English language (EL), Makasae language (ML), Tetun Terik (TT), and bahasa Indonesia (BI) show that each of those languages has their own similarities and differences either from their word orders syntactically or semantically. Based on the word order, (EL) is canonically known as SVO with OSV alternation, the word order of (ML) is canonically known as SOV with OSV alternation. The word order of (TT) is canonically known as SVO with OSV alternation. The word order of (BI) is canonically known as SVO with two possible alternation typologycally whether OSV or VOS. The analysis shows that if a noun (N) or a noun phrase (NP) are husbandries such as cow, horse, pig, dog, goat, and sheep etc, they will not agree with some action verbs such as cook, write, tuku, boil, type and read etc.This disagreement is effective for all types of languages over the world. Some nouns (N) like grass and leaves that function as the OBJ also disagree with the SUB of a clause if the SUB is a group of carnivora animals such as lion, leopard, tiger and cat etc. This disagreement is also effective for all types of languages around the world.The PRED nawa (eat) in Makasae Language (ML) can agree with any kinds ofnouns (N) or noun phrases