Сравнительный анализ глагольных выражений в простых предложениях в индонезийском и русском языках

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

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

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	perevodil pis’ma vchera
‘I	translated letters yesterday’
Ya	budu perevodit’ pis’ma zavtra
‘I	will translate letters tomorrow’
Ona	prevodit pis’ma kazhdyi den
‘She	translates letters everyday’
Ona	perevodila pis’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:

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:

V

VP —► < V + NP

V + AP

V + AjdP

We may also set up the rule in the following ways:

VP —►

V

V + NP

V + AP

V + Adjp

VP —>V +

NP

AP

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.

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:

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:

NP	Copula	Pred( NP/AdjP/AP)
On		fermer
‘He	is	a farmer’
Oni		uchitelya
‘They	are	teachers’

Interrogetive marker	NP	VP
Apakah	dia	mengajr gramatika hari ini?
‘Does	he	teach grammar today?’
Apakah	mereka	membawa kamera?
‘Do	they	bring camera?’

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’

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].