From V-O-S to S-V-O Language?: A Diachronic Study on

Word-order Typology of Minangkabaunese

Jufrizal

, Lely Refnita

English Department of FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang, Jl. Prof. Dr. Hamka, Padang, Indonesia

English Department of FIB, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Jl. Ir. Sutami No. 36, Surakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: grammatical construction, Minangkabaunese, word-order typology, markedness.

Abstract: Recent studies on grammatical typology of Minangkabaunese claim that: (i) the basic grammatical

constructions of Minangkabaunese have the S-V-O word-order with the variation V-O-S and O-S-V; (ii) the

S-V-O word-order is the highest degree of acceptability for formal language and commonly used by young-

educated speakers; (iii) the V-O-S word-order is acceptable in old-stylistic constructions and frequently used

by native speakers in informal speech events; and (iii) the O-S-V word order, however, is assigned as the

topicalization construction; it is not the basic clause construction, then. A question then rises up: how do the

variations of the word-order come up? The answer for this basic question needs further typological analyses.

Among the others, the diachronic studies are relevant to do in order that the progress and/or change of word-

order typology can be argumentatively explored. This paper particularly discusses a preliminary-diachronic

study on word-order typology of Minangkabaunese. The main questions answered in this paper is that “how

does Minangkabaunese have S-V-O, V-S-O, and O-S-V word-order typology?” This study was a descriptive-

qualitative one which was operationally conducted as a field research and in a library study. The data in the

forms of clausal and syntactical (grammatical) constructions were collected through participant observation,

semi-structural interview, distributing questionnaire, and having note-taking. The analysis results reveal that

the S-V-O word-order is more basic in modern-formal Minangkabaunese, meanwhile the V-O-S word-order

are natively preferred in old-stylistic constructions and in casual-informal speech events. It may be

diachronically assumed that Minangkabaunese is in the evolutionary progress from V-O-S to S-V-O language;

it was originally V-O-S language in nature, then it gradually becomes S-V-O in modern style.

1 INTRODUCTION

Languages are various in terms of forms, meanings,

functions, and values although they have particular

universal-shared characteristics to say as human

languages. The studies on the diversity of languages

and on the patterns of variation within this universe

are the great interest of linguistic typologists

(typologists for short). The studies on structural

patterns naturally performed by the surface forms of

human languages are both interesting and challenging

in order to classify and to group thousands of existing

languages cross-linguistically into certain

classification of domains. Typologists argue that

despite the differences among the languages in the

world, there must be certain properties whereby the

languages of the world are all recognized as falling

into human language category; there must be an

underlying unity to human languages in nature. In

addition to synchronic studies of language

phenomena, typologists have been trying to enlarge

the scope of typological studies into diachronic ones

as the part of linguistic awareness and studies on the

phenomena of language changes along with the

history of human race.

As the socio-cultural phenomena, human

languages are not static; they “live” and are all

dynamic as human beings are. Languages appear,

develop, and change all time in systematic and natural

ways as the reflections of human development in the

world. Anderson (in Thomsen (ed.), 2006:65)

clarifies that in the synchronic perspective, on the

historical level, the ‘language’ that changes is a

‘practice of speaking’, meanwhile in the diachronic

perspective, and the ‘language’ is a ‘tradition of

speaking’. The historical dimension of both practices

and traditions is obvious and undeniable. Clearly,

every living language serves as a tool of

Jufrizal, . and Refnita, L.

From V-O-S to S-V-O Language?: A Diachronic Study on Word-order Typology of Minangkabaunese.

DOI: 10.5220/0009428400330040

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on English Language Teaching, Linguistics and Literature (ELITE 2019) - Promoting Global Diversity, Partnership and Prosperity through

English Development, pages 33-40

ISBN: 978-989-758-459-6

communication in the present, and at the same time it

is of course a product of history. The speakers of one

particular language have both expectations of

contemporary usage and memories of past usage.

Thus, the studies of language typology need to be

addressed to the historical-comparative aspects

languages as well in order to have valuable data and

information concerning with the nature of language

itself. This type of studies accommodates the idea of

diachronic-comparative linguistics which is common

in Historical-Comparative Linguistics.

In relation to the ideas above, Song (2001:298)

mentions that the possibility of extending linguistic

typology to historical linguistics had been explored or

entertained as evident in the earlier works practically

executed by Greenberg (1957) and Jacobson (1958).

He adds that the synchronic typologically derived

universal should not be violated in linguistic

reconstruction. Ideally speaking, languages should

belong to one of the occurring types within specific

typologies or groups. Language universals are

deemed to function as constraints on language types.

This in turn has significant implications for linguistic

reconstruction just as do implicational universals.

Languages can only naturally change from one

occurring type into another occurring types; language

can never change either from or into a non-occurring

types. Thus, what is possible in human languages will

not arise out of what is possible in human languages.

This suggests that the constraints that synchronic

typology places on language types can also be

linguistically interpreted as ‘constraints on

typological change among occurring types within

specific typologies. This dynamic view of synchronic

typology can be terminologically referred to as the

dynamicization of typology.

The idea to have both synchronic and diachronic

studies in Linguistic Typology and Language

Universals is also proposed by Comrie (1989).

According to him, the similarities between two or

more languages are possibly caused by four reasons.

Firstly, they could be due to the chance. Secondly,

they could stem from the fact that the languages are

genetically related and have inherited the common

property from their common ancestor. Thirdly, the

languages could be in areal contact; in this sense, one

language could have borrowed the property from the

other, or they could have borrowed from the other-

close language, either directly or through mediation

of yet other languages. Lastly, the property could be

a language universal, either absolute or a tendency.

Even though these four factors are still debatable and

need clarification in Historical-Comparative

Linguistics, they are sufficiently reasonable and

logically acceptable. It can be stated that the

diachronic studies on particular aspects of

grammatical features of languages in the framework

of Linguistic Typology are certainly relevant to do as

the awareness and as a particular “view point” of

historical aspects of language and language change.

The studies on Linguistic Typology under

diachronic perspectives have been conducted in many

areas of grammar by linguists, especially by

typologists. Greenberg (1957) who studied the

implicational correlation of word-order and Jacobson

(1958) who studied the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-

European stop system can be assigned as the

examples of diachronic-historical studies in

Linguistic Typology (see Song, 2001). Then, Yiu

(2014) studied the typology of word-order in Chinese

dialects. The study focused on revisiting the

classification of Min* in the comparative analysis.

This is one of the recent studies which used

diachronic perspectives in comparative framework

that can be consulted to have other form of studies of

diachronic perspectives of word-order typology.

Thepkanjana & Uehara (2015) is another form of

studies dealing with word-order typology. They

studied effects of constituent orders on functional

patterns of the verbs for ‘give’. It was a kind of

contrastive study of Thai and Mandarin Chinese. The

study used comparative perspective and the analysis

focused on the extension patterns of the verbs for

lexicon with the meaning ‘give’. This study again

gives information on diachronic-comparative

analysis of word-order typology of language for

certain function of language.

The studies on word-order typology of local

languages in Indonesia, especially those which

belong to Malay family, by means of diachronic

studies have not been becoming the serious interest

yet. Basaria (2011), for instance, studied the

grammatical relations and semantic roles of Bahasa

Pakpak-Dairi in her dissertation. One part of the

dissertation discusses the word-order typology of the

local language, but the discussion was still in

synchronic analysis. Then, Tambusai (2016)

conducted a research on morphological typology and

argument structure of Malay Riau. He, in one part of

his dissertation, talks about word-order typology of

Malay Riau. In addition, Siwi (2018) studied the

syntax of Siladang Language in the framework of

grammatical typology. However, Tambusai and Siwi

did not use the diachronic ways to determine the

word-order typology of the local languages they

studied. In the previous typological researches toward

Minangkabaunese (see further Jufrizal, 2004; Jufrizal

et.al., 2013, 2014; Jufrizal et.al., 2016, 2017), the

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

word-order typology of Minangkabaunese became

parts of analysis and discussion. The basic clause

constructions, underlying and derived forms of

grammatical constructions were the bases for

assigning and determining the word-order typology

Minangkabaunese. However, the analyses and

discussion were still mostly in synchronic ones. In

some parts of the previous studies, the diachronic-

comparative analyses were still the suggestion for

further studies. Therefore, the diachronic study on

Minangkabaunese word-order typology is essentially

necessary in order to explore and to describe the

phenomena of word-order patterns of basic clause

construction in the local language.

It has been already claimed based on the recent

studies on grammatical typology of

Minangkabaunese that the local language has the

following grammatical properties dealing with word-

order typology:

(i) the basic grammatical constructions of

Minangkabaunese have the S-V-O word-

order with the variation V-O-S and O-S-V;

(ii) the S-V-O word-order is the highest degree

of acceptability for formal language and

commonly used by young-educated

speakers;

(iii) the V-O-S word-order is acceptable in old-

stylistic constructions and frequently used

by native speakers in informal speech

events; and

(iv) the O-S-V word order, however, is assigned

as the constructions of topicalization; thus,

this pattern of word-order typology is not

determined as the basic clause construction.

Related to the variations of word-order typology

of Minangkabaunese, a basic question then rises up:

how do the variations of the word-order come up? As

mentioned above, the data analysis of the previous

studies were still on synchronic ways. Therefore, the

answer for this question needs further typological

analyses on the forms and variations of word-order in

the local language. In addition to synchronic analysis,

the diachronic studies are relevant to do in order that

the progress and/or change of word-order typology

can be argumentatively explored. This paper, which

is further developed from a part of the result of

linguistic research conducted in 2019, specifically

discusses a preliminary-diachronic study on word-

order typology of Minangkabaunese. The main

questions answered as the basis of typological

analysis and discussion in this paper is that how does

Minangkabaunese have S-V-O, V-S-O, and O-S-V

word-order typology? The typological analysis and

discussion exposed in this paper are assumed to have

significant ideas and contributions to the studies on

Minangkabaunese word-order typology and for

relevant studies of human languages, as well.

Cross-linguistic studies in grammatical typology

claim that there are six patterns of word-orders (or

constituent orders) of basic clause construction in

natural languages. It is theoretically supposed that all

of the word-order patterns serve as the basic

constituent order for at least one particular human

language found in the world. The followings data are

adopted from Whaley (1997) showing the possible

patterns of word-order typology based on basic clause

constructions of human languages.

S – O – V (Japanese):

Taro ga inu o mita

Taro Sub dog Obj saw

‘Taro saw the dog’

S – V – O (Kinyarwanda of Rwanda):

Umugore arasoma igitabo

woman 3S-read book

‘The woman is reading a book’

V – S – O (Biblical Hebrew):

Bara Elohim et ha- shamayim

created God Obj ART-heaven

‘God created the heavens’

V – O – S (Malagasy):

Manasa lamba amin-’ny savony ny lehilahy

washes clothes with- the soap the man

‘The man washes clothes with the soap’

O – V – S (Hixkaryana of Brazil):

Toto yahosiye kamara

man it-grabbed-him jaguar

‘The jaguar grabbed the man’

O – S – V (Urubu of Brazil):

pako xua u’u

banana John he-ate

‘John ate banana’

The basic word-order typology in one language is

firstly determined by the highest percentage of

“acceptability” of grammatical constructions. Of

course, this is the result of intensive typological

studies based great amount of relevant data. Even

though constituent word-order typology has proved to

be a powerful and basic line of researches in

answering the question “what is a language?”, there

From V-O-S to S-V-O Language?: A Diachronic Study on Word-order Typology of Minangkabaunese

are still some other basic issues that have been raised

and argued. A question such as: “does one language

have rigid word-order typology?” can be regarded as

one basic-important question to explore the “degree”

of acceptability and flexibility possessed by

grammatical constructions found in one given

language (see among the other Whaley, 1997).

Whaley also states that almost all languages have

more than one way to order S(ubject), V(erb), and

O(bject) as the basic clause constructions. In

languages with fairly (and/or rather) rigid constituent

order, for instance, certain variations of S-V-O

patterns are clearly employed for specific functions in

constructing a discourse (or a text) in verbal

communication. In English, for instance, when O-S-

V (as “beans, I like”) appears, it is probably clear that

this constituent-order should not be accepted as basic

order to the language because it is only used in very

specific-restricted contexts of language uses. For

many languages, however, two (or more) constituent

(word) orders may occur in rather high frequency in

practical uses and they do not seem to have any

unique or specific discourse function in certain

speech events. In accordance with the ideas, how

linguists decide the basic word order in one language

becomes a “critical question” to be answered, then.

Some linguists have argued that in classifying and

assigning languages according to basic their word-

order, a category to be used should exist for languages

that do not have a basic constituent order at all. In this

case, however, that one language is in the progress of

shift or change from one pattern of word-order to

another pattern can be an alternative-linguistic

analysis for problem solving. This is a type of

diachronic-comparative studies applied to linguistic

typology as it is presented in this present paper.

Related to the ‘split’ order of constituents in basic

clause constructions of human languages, what

Whaley (1997:97 – 98) states can be the basis for

argumentation and analysis. Accordingly, the

primary split in language types is rooted in whether

the constituent or word-order is primarily sensitive to

and highly influenced by pragmatic considerations (it

may be said as flexible-order) or syntactic

considerations (or fixed order). Therefore, the

linguist, especially typologist, does not need to

impose a rigid constituent (word)-order classification

on a language that does not manifest any obvious and

certain rules for the linear arrangement of clausal-

grammatical units as the formal grammatical

constructions. Even in many languages in which

multiple or free orders for constituent arise, it is still

necessary and often possible to determine a basic

order by using several diagnostic in the studies of

grammatical typology. Therefore, the label “flexible

order” must be reserved for cases in which two or

more patterns appear where it is not always possible

to make a principled determination of what is the

basic one among the others.

Referring to the ideas delivered by typologists

(see Whaley, 1997; Comrie, 1989), the basic word-

order in sentential level can be assigned based on

syntactic construction and/or its pragmatic

consideration. In one language with “high” pragmatic

constraint in the level of clause (grammatical)

constructions, the “values” of acceptability of the

grammatical constructions cannot be only based on

the syntactical structures and rules. The consideration

and focus of attention should be given and be related

to the pragmatic functions involved in the

constructions. Naturally, it is mostly found in the

languages with “high” pragmatic constraints in which

the basic word-order typology can be more than one

pattern. In local languages, which belong to Malay

language family, pragmatic functions and values tend

to be dominant in certain types grammatical

constructions. As the result, the variation and the

“degree” of acceptability of the each grammatical

construction may be more flexible and in scales. In

addition, it is also natural and possible that the word

order typology of one language tends to change and

the consequences of evolutionary processed happed

to languages (see further Moravcsik, 2013:201 – 206;

and also Comrie, 1989; Dixon, 1994; Song, 2001). In

accordance with the ideas, the diachronic-

comparative analysis, as it is used in this paper, is

highly helpful.

2 METHODS

This study was originally a descriptive-qualitative

research in linguistics which was operationally

conducted in 2019. More specifically, this research

was a field research whis was mainly supported by a

library study. Mainly, this research was

observationally executed in the main land of West-

Sumatera in which the native speakers of

Minangkabaunese originally live and socio-culturally

develop. As the supporting method, the library study

was in the form of documents studies and manuscripts

quotation. The data were the various forms of clause-

syntactical constructions categorized and determined

as the formal-grammatical constructions. Practically,

the data collection was practically operated as the

participant observation, depth-interview, note taking,

administrating questionnaires, and quoting data from

written manuscripts. The instruments of the research

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

were field-notes, observation sheets, interview guide,

recording equipments, questionnaire sheets, and

writing equipments. The native speakers of

Minangkabaunese who were intentionally selected as

informants and respondents and the manuscripts

written in Minangkabaunese in the forms of written

folk-stories, newspapers, and magazines were the

sources of data. Then, because the researchers are all

the native speakers of Minangkabaunese, they also

functioned as the sources of data. The intuitive data,

however, were always systematically cross-checked

and seriously consulted to the selected informants in

order to get data validity and reliability. The data

obtained then were orthographically transcribed and

then grammatically classified into clausal-syntactical

categories to decide whether the data were

appropriate, sufficient, and ready to analyze. The data

were systematically analyzed by using the relevant

theories of word order typology frequently applied in

grammatical typology, and supported by the

framework of diachronic perspectives and principles.

The results of analysis are argumentatively described

in formal and in informal ways commonly used in

linguistics.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

There have been some studies on the phenomena of

word-order typology of the Minangkabaunese

language (beginning from Jufrizal, 2004; and

continued by Jufrizal et.al., 2006; Jufrizal et.al., 2013,

2014; Jufrizal et.al., 2016, 2017). The previous

synchronic analyses applied in the previous studies

claim that there are three patterns of constituent

orders of formal-grammatical constructions at

syntactical level of Minangkabaunese. Three patterns

of word-order of clause construction in the local

language are: (i) S-V-O; (ii) V-O-S; and (iii) O-S-V.

The followings are the examples of formal-

grammatical constructions which indicates that

Minangkabaunese belongs to S-V-O languages.

(1) Inyo ma- ulang carito lamo sudah itu.

PRO3SG ACT- repeat history old after that

‘He repeated old news after that’

(2) Kami alah ma- makai caro lamo tu di siko.

PRO1PL PERF ACT-use ways old ART in here

‘We had used the old ways here’

(3) Urang tu ka mam-bali tanah dakek musajik.

Man ART FUT ACT-buy earth near mosque

‘The man will buy the earth near the mosque’

(4) Acok bana paja tu man- cari ilik-ilik

Frequently small boy ART ACT-look for tricks

di nagari ko.

in country this

‘The small boy frequently looked for tricks in

this country’

Each clause above is morphologically marked by

prefix maN- to indicate the active voice of the

nominative-accusative constructions. The clause

constructions as seen in (1) – (4) are the first type of

basic grammatical constructions which have S-V-O

word-order. This pattern of word-order is the highest

degree of acceptability mentioned by native speakers

and based on written data, where inyo, kami, urang

tu, and paja tu are the S(ubjects); ma-ulang, ma-

makai, mam-bali, and man-cari are the V(erbs); while

carito lamo, caro lamo, tanah, and ilik-ilik are

O(bjects) in each relevant clause.

This is the word order of clauses which have been

claimed as the the basic clause of Minangkabaunese.

In this type of clause construction, the grammatical

meanings and other formal-natural senses of

meanings are formally packaged and easily

understood by the native speakers. Most young

speakers and educated people of Minangkabaunese

agree and decide that the S-V-O constructions as seen

(1) – (4) above are highly common and in the highest

frequency of uses based on respondents of the

research. Those types of clauses are the unmarked

constructions in nature seen from markedness theory.

Typological testing toward such constructions

indicates that the nominative-accusative

constructions with S-V-O word-order can be assigned

as the basic-clause construction. That is one primary

reason to state that Minangkabaunese is one of

accusative language at syntactic level. Then, it can be

stated as well that the grammatical meanings

conveyed in the clause construction with S-V-O word

order is less indicative, neutral, and high-formal (see

also Jufrizal et.al., 2016; Jufrizal, 2018). This type of

grammatical constructions mostly appears and

commonly used in formal situation of speech events,

in educational-normative expressions, and in having

neutral positions for delivering certain information

and/or messages. Therefore, the S-V-O word-order is

mostly preferred by young speakers and educated

people of Minangkabaunese in daily life

communication.

In addition to S-V-O word-order, Minang-

kabaunese also has the type of grammatical

constructions with the pattern of word-order as VOS.

The following data are the examples of clause

construction in Minangkabaunese which can be also

From V-O-S to S-V-O Language?: A Diachronic Study on Word-order Typology of Minangkabaunese

assigned as a basic-clause construction due to its high

frequency in uses as the casual speech.

(5) Man- jua tanah waang baliak taun lalu yo.

ACT-sell land PRO2SG again year last PART

‘You sold the land again last year, right’

(6) Ba- tuka oto ang sajak kajadian itu yo.

ERG-change car POS2SG since event ART PART

‘You changed your car since the event’

(7) Man- angkek tuah urang tu agaknyo.

ACT-promote prestige man ART probably

‘That man probably promotes his prestige’

(8) Ma- niru corak nan adoh kito eloknyo.

ACT imitate pattern REL existing PRO2PL better

‘We ought to imitate the existing pattern’

(9) Ma- ukia angan-angan sajo kito ruponyo.

ACT-draw imagination only PRO2PL probably

‘We only probably draw the high imagination’

The V-O-S clause constructions as in (5) – (9)

above are also grammatically accepted and

commonly used by Minangkabaunese in daily

communication as the casual speech and in

traditional-stylistic uses. Compared to clauses with S-

V-O word order, the clauses with V-O-S word-order

are dominantly found in folk-stories and in oral

expressions of cultural-stylistic style. The data (7),

(8), and (9) are the examples of cultural-stylistic uses

in traditional contexts. The native speakers of

Minangkabaunese intuitively understand that the

meanings brought by such clauses have stylistic

senses in nature. In some typological studies toward

local languages of Malay family and in Austronesia,

it is claimed that the V-O-S is the basic word-order

typology. Malagasy (see Whaley, 1997; Dryer in

Shopen (ed.), 2007), bahasa Pakpak-Dairi (Basaria,

2016); bahasa Siladang (Siwi, 2018) are the examples

of Malay-Austronesia languages with V-O-S word-

order typology.

As the clauses with V-O-S word-order are

frequently used in the sense of stylistic and casual

uses in daily communication as the casual speech, this

type of clauses can be grammatically assigned as

another form of the basic clause construction in

Minangkabaunese. Thus, there are two basic clause

constructions in Miangkabaunese, namely those with

S-V-O and V-O-S word order. Is it right to claim that

Minangkabaunese belongs to language with two basic

clause constructions as they can be formulated as S-

V-O and V-O-S? How does Minangkabaunese have

S-V-O and V-O-S word-order of basic clause?

Synchronic analyses on the two types of word-order

typology of Minangkabaunese may answer the first

question as yes based on two main reasons. Firstly,

the two patterns of word-order are found and used by

the native speakers in balance frequency although the

respondents’ answers to questionnaires distri-buted in

this study (and also in previous ones) told that the

frequency of S-V-O is higher than V-O-S. Secondly,

the nominative-accusative constructions with S-V-O

word-order bring about higher formal meanings than

V-O-S and the S-V-O constructions are mostly

preferred by younger-educated speakers of this

language. Based on the facts, it may be also

reasonable to state that S-V-O is more basic than V-

O-S in modern Minangkabaunese (see also Jufrizal,

2018a; Jufrizal, 2018b).

The answer based on synchronic analyses as

stated above can be typologically agreed because

some languages with high pragmatic constraints are

possible to have more than one basic clause

construction (see further Comrie, 1989; Whaley,

1997; Song, 2001). The answer for second question,

how does Minangkabaunese have S-V-O and V-O-S

word-order of basic clause? (and this is the main

question to be answered in this present paper, in fct)

cannot only be stated as it is synchronically described

above. The diachronic-comparative study and

analysis are assumed to be further needed and helpful

in this case. Let’s simply compare and see the

historical background of the dominant uses of clauses

with S-V-O and V-O-S in Minangkabaunese. Based

on the data and related linguistic information gained

in the last research, including the previous ones, the

S-V-O constructions in Minangkabaunese are

dominantly found and frequently used in formal ways

of communication in current era by younger-educated

speakers. In addition, such constructions convey

neutral-formal meanings as they are naturally used in

formal speech events both in oral and written uses. In

other side, the grammatical constructions in V-O-S

word-order are easily found in old-manuscripts and in

stylistic-cultural speech events of communication

even though today it may appear in casual-daily

communication events. It means that the V-O-S

clauses are common in stylistic-casual speech of daily

communication; the senses of stylistic and cultural

meanings are conveyed by this type of clause

constructions. The data and related information

collected indicate as well that the V-O-S

constructions are preferred by old speakers in having

humanistic advices. In addition, it is assumed that

they were highly common in practical uses of old

Minangkabaunese and in cultural-stylistic speech.

The following data were quoted from old-stylistic

manuscripts (classic folk stories, kingdom laws,

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference

classic drama transcriptions) indicating that V-O-S

were highly common in old-classical and stylistic

Minangkabaunese.

(10) Ma- nitah rajo kutiko itu.

ACT-declare king time that

‘The king declared at that time’

(11) Ma- nadah jamba puti tu kini.

ACT-serve meal nice-girl ART now

‘The nice girl is now serving the meal’

(12) Ma- urai kusuik kito nan elok.

ACT-solve problem PRO2PL REL good

‘We better solve the problems’

(13) Di- karang janji untuk basamo.

PAS-construct promise for all

‘The promises were constructed for all (people)’

(14) Ba- baliak pulang Malin daulu.

ERG-back home name firstly

‘Malin immediately went home back’

Based on the diachronic-comparative analysis

above, there are three main remarks argued, namely:

(i) It can be claimed that the “original” word-order

typology of Minangkabaunese was V-O-S. It

can be correlated to the cases of Malagasy,

Pakpak-Dairi, Batak Toba, and Siladang

languages, the languages with V-O-S word-

order typology.

(ii) That Minangkabaunese has S-V-O word-order

typology is the result and logical consequence of

language evolution motivated by language

contact, the shift and change of socio-cultural

values in its speech community, and

globalization era.

(iii) Modern Minangkabaunese is in the progress of

the shift (and tends to change) from a V-O-S

language in word-order typology to S-V-O

language.

In relation to these diachronic-comparative

remarks, it is reasonable to say that language

evolution, language contact, and socio-cultural

changes of its speakers lead Minangkabaunese has

two patterns of word-order typology; V-O-S is

supposed as the classical-original word-order and S-

V-O as the developing-modern one. Therefore, there

two reasonable patterns of word-order typology of

modern Minangkabaunese, namely: S-V-O and V-O-

S. The S-V-O word-order can be assigned as the basic

word-order typology under the influence of modern-

immigrant languages, while the V-O-S originally

comes from the old-classical word-order of

Austronesian and Malay family languages.

Diachronically, the result of study presented in this

paper tells that Minangkabaunese can be assumed as

a language which is in the progress of shifting (and

tends to change) from V-O-S to S-V-O language, the

main characteristic of word order typology of high

degree of nominative-accusative languages, such as

English.

Another pattern of constituent order of

grammatical clause constructions in Minang-

kabaunese is O-S-V, as in the following data (see also

the related data in Jufrizal, 2018).

(15) Ujuang jalan kami cari; kato sapatah kami

end road PRO1PL seek; word one PRO1PL

bari.

give

‘We (try) to seek the end of road; we (need) to give a

message’

(16) Aturan nan ado kito ikut- i.

regulation REL available PRO1PL follow-APL

‘We always follow the available regulation’

(17) Janji lamo inyo suruak-an.

commitment old PRO3SG hide- APL

‘He hides the old commitment’

(18) Ari rayo kito nanti juo.

holiday PRO2PL wait for also

‘We are also waiting for the holiday’

The grammatical-typological analyses and test

toward the O-S-V constructions (as 15 – 18) above,

however, cannot be assigned as the basic clause

constructions; they are actually the topicalization

constructions. In accordance with the fact, it has been

already clarified in recent working papers (see

Jufrizal, 2018a; Jufrizal, 2018b) that O-S-V is not one

variation of basic word-order typology in

Minangkabaunese. Such grammatical constructions

are the clauses with high influence of pragmatic

functions at syntactic level.

4 CONCLUSIONS

That Minangkabunese has two patterns of word-order

typology cannot be assigned and argued only based

on synchronic study. The synchronic analyses on

word-order typology of Minangkabaunese remain

further questions to be further answered. How

Minangkabaunese has both V-O-S and S-V-O word-

order typology is one of essential questions which

need diachronic studies. Based on the diachronic

analysis, it seems that Minangkabaunese was

From V-O-S to S-V-O Language?: A Diachronic Study on Word-order Typology of Minangkabaunese

originally a V-O-S language, and due to the factors of

historical development, language evolution, language

contact, and the changes of socio-cultural values of its

speech community, it shifts to be a S-V-O language

in modern style. Therefore, the modern

Minangkabaunese tends to have S-V-O word-order

typology, but for certain purposes of cultural-stylistic

communication and casual-humanistic interaction,

the native speakers still tend to have and use the V-O-

S clause constructions. It may be also claimed that the

S-V-O (the nominative-accusative construction) is

the basic word-order of Minangkabaunese which is

simply influenced by modern-immigrant languages,

especially English as a “high” nominative-accusative

language with S-V-O word-order typology. This

preliminary-diachronic study on the word order

typology of Minangkabaunese welcomes scientific

questions and criticisms in order that all irrelevant

and problematic ways of analyses, constructing the

items of claims, and drawing conclusion can be well

revised, then.

REFERENCES

Basaria, I. 2011. ‘Relasi dan peran gramatikal bahasa

Pakpak-Dairi: Kajian tipologi’ (unpublished

dissertation). Medan: Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas

Sumatera Utara.

Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic

typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Jufrizal. 2004. “Struktur argumen dan aliansi gramatikal

bahasa Minangkabau” (unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Denpasar: Program Pascasarjana

Universitas Udayana.

Jufrizal., Zaim, M., & Ardi, H. 2013, 2014. “Bahasa dan

budaya Minangkabau: Dari tipologi gramatikal ke

budaya berbahasa penuturnya” (unpublished research

reports). Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.

Jufrizal., Amri. Z., Ardi, H. 2016, 2017. “Kemasan makna

gramatikal dan makna sosial-budaya bahasa

Minangkabau: Penyelidikan atas tatamakna dan fungsi

komunikatifnya” (unpublished research reports).

Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.

Jufrizal. 2018a. ‘Word-order typology of Minang-

kabaunese: variation and degree of its acceptability’ (a

paper presented at International Seminar of KOLITA-

17; 10-12 April, 2018). Jakarta: PKBB Unika Atma

Jaya.

Jufrizal. 2018b. ‘Grammatical meanings of clauses with

different word-orders in Minangkabaunese’ (a paper

presented at KIMLI-2018). Manokwari: MLI and

Universitas Papua.

Moravcsik, E. A. 2013. Introducing language typology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shopen, T. 2007. Language typology and syntactic

description: Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Siwi, P. 2018. ‘Sintaksis bahasa Siladang: kajian tipologi

gramatikal’ (unpublished dissertation). Medan:

Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Sumatera Utara

Song, J. J. 2001. Linguistic typology: morphology and

syntax. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Tambusai, A. 2016. ‘Tipologi morfologis and struktur

argumen bahasa Melayu Riau’ (unpublished

dissertation). Medan: Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas

Sumatera Utara.

Thepkanjana, K., & Uehara, S. 2015. ‘Effects of constituent

orders on functional extension patterns of the verbs for

‘give’: A contrastive study of Thai and Mandarin

Chinese’ in Language and Linguistics. lin.sagepub.com

Thomsen, O. N. (ed.). 2006. Competing models of linguistic

change: Evolution and beyond. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Whaley, L. J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and

diversity of language. London: Sage Publication.

Yiu, C. Yuk-man. 2014. ‘Typology of word order in

Chinese dialects: Revisiting the classification of Min*’

in language and linguistics. lin.sagepub.com.

ELITE 2019 - English Linguistics, Literature, and Education Conference