SEMANTIC CAUSATIVES USAGE IN FINDING NEMO 2003 MOVIE
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The objective of this study is to describe how semantic causatives are used in Finding Nemo movie based on Shibatani’s theory. Semantic causative expresses a causal relationship between two occurrences or actions. This study used a qualitative descriptive type where the source of data in this study was Finding Nemo movie, while the data itself were the written utterances. The data were collected by searching and downloading the movie, transcribing the utterances of the dialog, and identifying the data. The data were analyzed by presenting, describing, interpreting and concluding the data. semantic causatives include state and action, transitivity, control, volition, affectedness, directness, intention, naturalness, and involvement. The result show, that the use of semantic causatives in Finding Nemo movie involve the causer and causee parameters, that is, directness, intention, naturalness, involvement, control, volition, affectedness, and also the verb parameters of state/action and transitivity. These parameters indicate the relationship between the cause and effect and causality in this movie. Semantic causative plays a significant role in shaping the narrative and character actions. Semantic causative is the relationship between cause and effect, and it is a fundamental storytelling element that helps drive the plot forward and create emotional engagement with the audience.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
finding nemo, cause and effect, semantic causative
Croft, W.A., (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Cruse, D., (1986). Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Davidson, D., (1969). The Individuation of Events, in N. Rescher, ed., Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, Reidel, Dordrecht, 216-234.
DeLancey, S., (1984). Notes on Agentivity and Causation, Studies in Language 8, 181-213.
Dey, Ian (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis : A User-Friendly Guide For Social Scientists”. Routledge, London.
Dowty, D., (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Fillmore, C.J., (1968). The Case for Case, in E. Bach and R.T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1-88.
Gruber, J.S., (1976). Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Jackendoff, R.S., (1987). The Status of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory, Linguistic Inquiry 18,369-411.
Jung, H. K., (2014). On the Syntax of Applicative and Causative Constructions. A Thesis, The University of Arizona.
Lakoff, G., (1965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity: Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation. Harvard Computational laboratory, Report No. NFS – 16.
Langacker, R.W., (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 1: Theoretical Prerequisites, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Levin, B., and M. Rappaport Hovav. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Inter-face, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chapter 3.
Levin, Beth; Pinker, Steven. (1991). Lexical & Conceptual Semantics, Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
As an open access, Seshiski: Southeast Journal of Language and Literary Studies follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Seshiski allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions. Also, it allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.