Circumfixation: An Unnoticed Complication

for Indonesian Stress

Thomas J. Conners

Yale University

This paper explores the nature of a heretofore unanalyzed phenomenon in Indonesian, namely circumfixation and the effects of this phenomenon on stress patterns in the language.  Specifically, I argue that Indonesian has three productive circumfixes, here defined as the concurrent and obligatory attachment of a prefix and a suffix to a radical or root.  Further, I argue that circumfixation in Indonesian represents a unitary morphological process, distinct from simultaneous prefixation and suffixation.  Semantic and morphological evidence is here adduced—in Anderson’s (1992) A-Morphous Morphology framework—however, the most striking evidence comes from prosodic considerations.  The stress pattern in circumfixed words differs clearly from that of simultaneously prefixed and suffixed words. 

Primary stress in Indonesian falls on the penult of the root, and reanalyzes to remain penultimate with the addition of suffixes (1).[1] However, in circumfixed words, stress remains on the penult of the root, that is, on the antepenult of the new prosodic word in singly affixed elements (2).  If a circumfixed root is further suffixed, the stress reanalyzes to the penult of the new prosodic word (2)—the same pattern found in roots with multiple suffixation.  Note that schwa does not support stress in Indonesian and that prefixes regularly fall outside of the domain of stress assignment.

Although Indonesian stress patterns have received quite a bit of attention in the recent literature, no author has yet noted or accounted for the differing stress pattern found in circumfixed elements.  I follow Cohn & McCarthy’s (1998) OT analysis of Indonesian stress.  However, in that work there is no discussion of circumfixation or the variant stress pattern noted above for circumfixed elements.  In order not to complicate their analysis, and so as to not introduce any new constraints or necessitate a cyclic analysis, yet at the same time to allow for the grammar to distinguish simply between circumfixed elements on the one hand, and simultaneously prefixed and suffixed elements on the other, I argue that circumfixation and prefixation in Indonesian represent adjunction structures (3), whereas suffixation is incorporation to the root (4).  As adjunction structures, prefixes and circumfixes fall outside of the domain of proper stress assignment, while suffixes are naturally incorporated into the stress assigning domain.  In circumfixed words which are subsequently suffixed, while both the suffix and the suffixal element of the circumfix will fall outside the proper domain of stress, together they constitute a footable sequence and can therefore receive stress (3b).  Without this modification, the C & M analysis is unable to account for the stress pattern in circumfixed words.  However, my analysis allows us to generate the tableaux in (5 & 6), with the same ranking of constraints, and to account successfully for the stress pattern demonstrated in circumfixed elements.  It also provides clear and definitive arguments for the existence of circumfixes as unitary morphological processes, distinct from simultaneous prefixation and suffixation. 

root                             prefix + root + suffix             prefix + root + suffix + suffix

(1)        a. pátut                         me-matút-kan                                 me-matut-kán-nya

                proper             ACT-proper-CAUS              ACT-proper-CAUS-3sg

               ‘proper’                       ‘to correct’                                    ‘to correct him/her/it’

            b. hántu                        meng-hantú-i                          meng-hantu-í-nya

                ghost               ACT-ghost-LOC                  ACT-ghost-LOC-3sg

               ‘ghost’              ‘to frighten/haunt’               ‘to frighten/haunt him/her/it’                    

(2)        root                             circumfix + root                     circumfix + root +suffix

            a. líhat                          ke-líhat-an                         ke-lihat-án-nya

                see                           cfx-see-cfx                         cfx-see-cfx-3sg

               ‘see’                         ‘visible’                                    ‘it seems’

            b. percáya                        ke-percáya-an                               ke-percaya-án-nya

                believe             cfx-believe-cfx                              cfx-believe-cfx-3sg

               ‘believe’                       ‘belief’                                     ‘the belief’

(3)        a. [ |ca(rí-kan|)]                  look-CAUS             ‘look for s.t.’

b. [(|bìjak)sa(ná-nya|)]             wisdom-3sg              ‘the wisdom/regulation’

c. [(|càri)(-kán-nya|)]                look-CAUS-3sg            ‘look for it/him’

(4)        a. [ke-(|áda|)-an]                    *[ke-|ad(á|-an)]            cfx-ada-cfx                        ‘situation’

            b. [ke-(|àda|)-(án-nya)]    *[(kè-|ad)(á|-an)-nya]            cfx-ada-cfx-3sg            ‘the situation’

            c. [ |ad(á-nya)| ]                  *[(|áda)-nya|]               ada-sfx                                    ‘what there is’

(5)

(6)

Anderson, Steven R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology.  Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Cohn, Abigail and John J. McCarthy.  1998. Alignment and Parallelism in Indonesian             Phonology.  In Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 12:53-137.