•  
  •  
 

International Review of Humanities Studies

International Review of Humanities Studies

Abstract

This study investigates the plural meaning and expression of countable nouns in Chinese and Indonesian from morphological and syntactic perspectives and explores implications for language pedagogy. Although both languages encode plurality, they employ distinct mechanisms, which may pose challenges for Indonesian learners of Chinese. Using a qualitative, literature-based approach, data were drawn from scholarly studies, Chinese teaching materials, and reference sources such as dictionaries. Analysis focused on morphological markers, including affixation and reduplication, as well as syntactic structures, such as numeral–classifier phrases and quantifiers constructions. The findings show that Chinese expresses plurality through the suffix –men, classifier-based syntactic patterns, and quantifiers, whereas Indonesian primarily relies on reduplication, including noun and adjective reduplication, mechanisms that are limited or absent in Chinese. Indonesian can also employ quantifiers such as beberapa ‘some/several’ and classifier-based syntactic patterns, which partly overlap with Chinese strategies. These results highlight structural contrasts between the two languages and provide practical insights for teaching, and dictionary explanations aimed at Indonesian learners of Chinese.

Bahasa Abstract

Penelitian ini meneliti makna dan ekspresi plural pada nomina dapat-hitung dalam bahasa Mandarin dan bahasa Indonesia dari perspektif morfologis dan sintaktis, serta meninjau implikasinya bagi pengajaran bahasa. Meskipun kedua bahasa menandai pluralitas, mekanisme yang digunakan berbeda, yang mungkin menimbulkan kesulitan bagi pembelajar bahasa Mandarin penutur bahasa Indonesia. Data penelitian diperoleh melalui pendekatan kualitatif berbasis pustaka, termasuk studi akademik, bahan ajar bahasa Mandarin, dan kamus. Analisis difokuskan pada penanda morfologis, seperti afiksasi dan reduplikasi, serta struktur sintaktis, termasuk frasa numeral–klasifier dan konstruksi kuantifier. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa bahasa Mandarin mengekspresikan plural melalui sufiks -men, pola sintaktis berbasis klasifier, dan kuantifier, sedangkan bahasa Indonesia terutama menggunakan reduplikasi nomina dan adjektiva, mekanisme yang terbatas atau tidak terdapat dalam bahasa Mandarin. Bahasa Indonesia juga dapat menggunakan kuantifier seperti beberapa serta pola sintaktis berbasis klasifier, yang sebagian serupa dengan strategi bahasa Mandarin. Temuan ini menyoroti perbedaan struktural antara kedua bahasa dan memberikan wawasan praktis bagi pengajaran serta penjelasan kamus bagi pembelajar bahasa Mandarin penutur bahasa Indonesia.

References

Chung, S. (2000). On reference to kinds in Indonesian. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 157–171.

Dardjowidjojo, S. (1978). Sentence Patterns of Indonesian. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Dalrymple, M., & Mofu, S. (2011). Plural semantics, reduplication, and numeral modification in Indonesian. Journal of Semantics. Centre for Linguistics and Philology, University of Oxford.

Guo, H. (2013). 類型學視角下的漢語複數範疇研究 [A typological perspective on the plural category in Chinese]. Journal of Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics & Astronautics (Social Science Edition).

Han, X. F. (2001). 英漢語可數名詞複數對比研究 [A contrastive study of countable noun plurals in English and Chinese]. Journal of Anyang Normal University, 77– 78.

Hsieh, M.-L. (2008). The internal structure of noun phrases in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, Book Series in Chinese Linguistics.

Kadaryanto, B. (2010). Numeral classifiers and plurals in Indonesian (Master’s thesis, Utrecht University). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.

Li, Y. A. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 75–99. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Liu, J., Tindall, E., & Nisbet, D. (2006). Chinese learners and English plural forms. The Linguistics Journal, 1(3).

Liu, Y., Pan, W., & Gu, W. (1996). 實用現代漢語語法 [Practical Modern Chinese Grammar]. Taipei: Shida Shufan Co., Ltd.

Liu, Z., & Liu, Q. (2006). Journal of Anyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), (2), 109–112.

Moeliono, A. M., Lapoliwa, H., Alwi, H., Sasangka, S. S. T. W., & Sugiyono. (2017). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Qu, C. X. (1999). 漢語認知功能語法 [Cognitive-functional grammar of Chinese]. Taipei: Wenhe Publishing Co., Ltd.

Shridar, S. N. (1981). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and interlanguage. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp. xx–xx). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Sneddon, J. N. (1996). Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London & New York: Routledge.

Spolsky, B. (1979). Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage, and other useful fads. The Modern Language Journal, 63(5/6), 250–257.

Suhardiyanto, T. (2005). Jalan Bahasa: Pelajaran Praktis Tata Bahasa Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Wedatama Widya Sastra.

Universitas Indonesia. (1997). Kamus bahasa Cina–Indonesia. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.

Wen, X. H. (2008). 漢語做為外語的習得研究—理論基礎與課堂實踐 [The acquisition of Chinese as a foreign language: Theory and classroom practice]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Xiong, W. (1997). 漢英應用對比概論 [An introduction to applied Chinese-English contrastive studies]. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.

Yang, J. (2006). 對漢語系列教科書：漢語教程 [Textbook series for learning Chinese: Chinese course] (Rev. ed.; Eng. trans. D. Biao, 2012). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press; Jakarta: P.T. Legacy Utama Kreasindo.

Zhang, T. (2011). 從英漢可數名詞複數看“形合＂與“意合＂的相對性 [On the relative nature of syntactic and semantic unity in English-Chinese countable noun plurals]. Overseas English, (2), 256–258.

Zhao, Y. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Download

Share

COinS