{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036212729964051595, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00872277437090294, 'mean_word_length': 4.7202902933172055, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effective Sentences in Indonesian

This paper aims to describe effective sentences in Indonesian. It is shown that (in Indonesian) an effective sentence could be manifested by the addition or subtraction of a sentence element such as the copula adalah 'to be', the prepositions dari ‘of', the relative pronoun yang, and clause reduction. Effectiveness tied to a reduced clause only undergoes a subtraction of a sentence element such a nominal predicate and the subject of a dependent clause. Importantly, it is shown that effectiveness can be said to be universal (i.e. the analysis is supplemented by the English data) which automatically corroborate and support the effectiveness phenomena in Indonesian.


Introduction
The use of effective sentences in Indonesian involves language economy. It broadly includes enhanced the use of spelling and the use of standard Indonesian so as to produce a sentence in accordance with the syntactic/phonological rules of Indonesian (Rusdin 2014 (1a) is linked to ineffectiveness. The complementizers agar and supaya are equally used to connect two clauses to show that the embedded clause is a purposive clause. The simultaneous use of these two complementizers causes wastefulness, which ultimately produces an ineffective sentence. In a similar vein, (1b) is not effective because of the presence of the preposition mengenai 'about' which is not required by the verb discuss. Sentence (1c) is also ineffective because the predicate pengiriman barang 'delivery of goods' is not parallel to the other predicates existing in the clause. So, to straighten out (1c), delivery of goods must be replaced by delivering goods. The ineffectiveness of sentence (1d) involves a borrowed word from a foreign language, in this case, English. The borrowed word system must be adjusted to the Indonesian spelling system; i.e. system instead of the system.

Research Method
The Indonesian data used in this study were mainly collected from other speakers of Indonesian (although I am the native speaker of Indonesian myself, I would not rely only on my judgments) by means of an elicitation technique. To identify the acceptability judgment of the sentences used, the yes-no task was also employed. The participants were presented with a sentence at a time and were asked to give their judgment by indicating yes if the sentence is acceptable or no if it is unacceptable. The collected data were descriptively analyzed. Since the issue of effective sentences pertains to the interface of syntax and phonology (prosody), the analysis was handled employing these two linguistic domains.

Results and Analysis
This paper focuses on effective sentences related to the addition and reduction of the copula adalah 'to be', the relative pronoun yang, and the prepositions dari 'of'; and the ones only tied to a reduction of a sentence element (i.e. nominal predicates and subject of a dependent clause). The discussion of these issues of effectiveness is done in order.

Copula
It is often considered that Indonesian does not have a copula. It could be said that this view is based on the fact that the copula adalah is not present in some particular situations as exemplified in (2) However, the absence of copula in sentences (2a-b) relates to the so-called effective sentences (in Indonesian). The omission of the copula adalah in the two sentences above motivates the fact that the subject constituent is filled by a simplex NP, which arguably does not disrupt the subject constituent segments and predicate constituent segment. The effectiveness can be shown in the representation of constituent structure in which the predicate constituent, i.e. the verb phrase (VP) is only realized by a noun phrase (NP). Thus, sentence (2b) can be represented as (3).

3.
If the subject constituent in (2) were expanded, as in (4), the resulting sentence would be odd. It should be noted that one can argue that if given a pause break (marked by the symbol //) between the subject constituent and the predicate constituent, the resulting sentence will be fine. However, in a normal sentence utterance, this is not the case, which confirms that (4a-b) is odd. The acceptability of sentences (4a-b) can be restored by inserting the copula adalah, which means that the resulting sentences now become effective where the subject and predicate constituents are clearly separated. Sentences (4a-b) can thus be rewritten as (5a-b). The expansion of NP subject constituent here means causing to weaken the capacity of the subject NP as a constituent separator with the predicate constituent. In other words, sentence (5a), for example, the subject constituent is divided into three sub-constituents, namely: Tono, sitting, and at the back of the class. This may allow a situation in which only the sub-constituent at the back of the class is separated from the predicate constituent my little brother, not the whole subject constituent. Therefore, to avoid this possibility, the insertion of the copula adalah is extremely effective to contribute to the acceptability of the sentence. The constituent structure representation of a sentence (5a) is shown in (6)  Effectiveness can also occur directly with the presence of the copula adalah, although the NP subject constituent does not undergo an expansion (i.e. having a length modifier), as in (2). This may occur in (a simplex) subject NP which requires a precise definition or limitation to what that has been conveyed so that the copula adalah here has the function of reinforcing or avoiding errors of conception or understanding of things being explained.

b)
Washington adalah ibu kota Amerika Serikat Washington COP mother city America United 'Washington is the capital city of the United States' Now a question arises as to whether the presence of copula directly on the (simplex) subject is only the one shown by a sentence that exhibits a definition. The answer is no. Consider the following examples: 8.
[a] Jokowi-JK kita name 1PL.EXL (i) 'Our Jokowi-JK' (ii) 'Jokowi-JK is us' [b] Jokowi-JK adalah kita name COP 1PL.EXCL 'Jokowi-JK is us'(Kompas.com, 24/05/2014) At first observation, it appears that sentence (8a) is synonymous with a sentence (8b). By using the analogy of the previous analysis, the presence of the copula adalah, in a sentence (8b), separates the subject constituent from the predicate constituent. This analogy is correct; however, a strong trigger underlying the presence of the copula adalah is the pronoun kita. The pronoun kita in example (8a) is ambiguous between the pronoun treated as a possessive pronoun and the pronoun that syntactically functions as a predicate. This is due to the fact that pronoun forms in Indonesian are not distinguished for cases (possessive, nominative, dative, or accusative). The presence of the copula adalah can then be seen as a having a dual function. First, the pronoun kita precludes being interpreted as a possessive pronoun. Second, the presence of the copula adalah treats (8b) as a sentence, not as a phrase. Thus, we can conclude that the insertion of the copula adalah is very effective in (8b) where its interpretation here as a sentence is the desired one.
Constructions concerning effectiveness specifically the ones that relate to expansion of a constituent can also be observed in English, which is illustratable with the phrasal verb pick up. In the standard syntactic distribution, the adverbial particle up forms a unit with the verb pick, as shown in (9a). But syntactically, the particle up can be separated from the verb thus making it appear after the object of the sentence, as in (9b) undergoes an expansion, the separation of the particle from the verb cannot be done, as demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of (9c), which suggests that the particle up must be returned to its original position, as shown in (9d).
9. a) He picked up the man. b) He picked the man up. c)* He picked the man who came here yesterday up. d) He picked up the man who came here yesterday.
In order to conclude, the copula adalah may be elided in a sentence as specified above that might give an impression/ a view that copula is non-existent in Indonesian. A piece of evidence to show that the copula adalah is obligatory is found in cleft sentences as shown in (10b) which can be expressed as in (10c)

Preposition dari
The preposition dari 'of' can serve as a link between a noun and another noun. However, its presence is also sensitive to effectiveness. The NP tujuan penelitian 'research goal' in sentence (11a) is basically a combination of the two noun phrases, i.e. NP tujuan 'goal' and the NP penelitian 'research', which suggests that these two NPs bear a semantic relationship that requires the presence of a connector which connects these two noun phrases. The connector shows an alternative, additional, and contrastive relation filled by the connectors or, and, and but respectively, as illustrated in (12).

12.
a) Buku atau pensil (alternative) book or pencil 'Books or pencils' b) Baju dan celana (additional) shirt and pant 'Shirts and pants c) (Bukan) teman tapi musuh (contrastive) not friend but enemy '(We're not) friends but enemies' However, if the first NP is the expanded with a modifier, this expansion must require the presence of the preposition dari, acting as a connector, as shown in the following sentences. As shown in sentences (13a-b), the preposition/connector dari 'of' is present. The question then is why the preposition that functions as a connector is omissible. The answer is that the connector is generally possessive in nature whose presence could behave like the copula adalah. That is, when the first NP is filled by a noun head (which is not expandable), the possessive relationship between the two noun phrases can be predicted. Conversely, if the first NP is expanded the connector must be present to separate the first NP from the second NP.
A similar situation occurs in English noun phrases. However, unlike Indonesian, the appearance of a connector is triggered by the ordering pattern of two NPs (in English). The connector of noun phrases appears if the ordering between two nouns forming an NP is reversed. An NP requires a combination of a modifier (which limits the meaning of the head noun) with a head noun. The canonical sequence of an NP in English is Modifier + Head, as shown in (14a) and (14d). Note that in (14b) the reverse ordering between the two nouns requires the preposition of, while the ordering of the NP in (14d) whose modifier is filled by an adjective is not grammatical.

Relative Pronoun Yang
Yang is the relative pronoun in Indonesian, as in the clause orang yang datang kemarin adalah saudara prempuan saya 'the person who came yesterday is my sister'. The noun orang 'person' and saudara perempuan saya 'my sister' are the same entity. Thus in a complex sentence, one of these same entities is replaced with a relative pronoun.
In Indonesian relative pronouns can be used to segment the constituents present in a clause; as in (15a), in which the relative pronoun yang serves to separate the specifier constituent marked by the question word apa from the clausal constituent. Note that the relative pronoun yang has the same function as the pause break (marked by //) in (15b); whereas, in (15c), pausing is given after the subject constituent, which predictably yields In a clause where the predicate constituent is realized by a simple predicate such as the one containing a demonstrative pronoun, the segmentation between subject and predicates constituents has been very clear. In sentence (17a), the question word apa occupies the subject position. The demonstrative obviously serves as the predicate of the clause. The insertion of the relative pronoun yang in such constructions as in (18)  The constituent structure representation of a sentence (16a) is given in (19). The subject of the clause is analyzed as moving to the Spec position (indicated by an arrow) in which it is predictably realized as a question word.

b.
The moved element here has the effect of disrupting the clausal constituents, meaning that a type of separator is needed to separate the question word constituent from the remaining clausal constituent. This task is done by the relative pronoun yang. Recall that the combination of two NPs poses a dilemma. We have made it clear that the sequence of two NPs requires the preposition dari if the first NP is expanded. In a similar manner, the presence of a specifier means the addition of a new syntactic unit to the clause. Note again that the separator yang is needed when the moved item originates from the core argument of a clause, the subject, the primary object, and the secondary object. This confirms the situation that an interrogative cannot combine with the relative pronoun yang when the moved element, i.e. the question word replaces an oblique for one main reason. An oblique in Indonesian is realized by a prepositional phrase which amounts to saying that it is not compatible with a specifier which is realized by an NP whose head is a noun or a noun equivalent. AV.buy dress that 'For whom did she buy the book?'

Reduced Clauses
More or less related to the phenomenon of effective sentences in Indonesian is what I call a reduced clause. Reduced clauses, as the name suggests, can be said to be derivable from a complete clause but they are deliberately made effective for the purpose of linguistic frugality or achieving a certain pragmatic effect.  (21), the adjective panas 'hot' is used to show that one has a temperature. In other words, the adjective panas indicates a symptom (which might indicate the presence of a disease) as opposed to the same adjective when used to indicate a meteorological condition. Under this view, the adjective panas is not necessarily combinable with sakit 'sick, ill' in (21b) and punya sakit 'have a disease/illness in (21c); due to the fact that (21b) and (21c) have the same interpretation, as the English translation shows. In a similar manner, the noun jantung 'heart' can be used to express a disease. However, unlike the adjective panas, the noun jantung specifies the information that it is a body part; thus, the noun jantung per se does not inherently give the information of any disease related to it unless it is given a modification, as in (22a-b). In colloquial Indonesian constructions such as (22c) often occur. This is commonly intended for the purpose of softening the information that the speaker does not wish to be direct in stating the idea that the addressee has a heart trouble. The construction such as (22c) can lead to a misinterpretation especially in a situation where the addressee does not agree with the speaker or the addressee does not expect that the person in question has a heart trouble. Thus in the dialogue below (A) may react by interpreting jantung as part of the body rather than a disease.

A: Bagaimana
Tono? how name 'How is Tono?' B: Dia jantung 3SG heart (i) '(S)he is heart' (lit.) (ii) 'He has a heart trouble'(intended meaning) A: Semua orang punya jantung all person has heart 'All (people) have hearts' Another phenomenon that enters into the category of clause reductions is shown in sentences containing what is called the secondary predicate, as exemplified in (24) Sentences (24a-b) contain a secondary predicate, indicated respectively by the words mentah 'raw' and mati 'dead'. Before we come further to this issue of effectiveness, there is one important issue that needs to be addressed with regard to these sentences, i.e. why they are distinguished from each other by the term depictive and causative. Whether the sentence refers to depictive or causative depends on the properties/characteristics indicated by the first (verbal) predicate of the sentence, as shown in (24a-b), namely the verb memakan 'eat' and menembak 'shoot' respectively. The verb memakan does not cause the meat to be raw, therefore; (24a) the adjective is referred to as secondary depictive predicate. However, the action denoted by the verb shoot can cause people to die; then, (24b) relates to the secondary causative predicate. Based on this view, the first predicate in (24b) cannot be replaced with the verb membunuh 'kill' as it automatically has caused death, which means (24b) does not require the secondary predicate dead, making the resulting sentence ungrammatical, as shown in (25).

25.*
John membunuh mati orang itu name AV. dead man that 'John killed the man dead' Sentences (24a-b) can be said to be a combination of two clauses, as exemplified in (26) and (27), where the second clause is attached to the first clause.

26.
Tono memakan daging itu dan daging itu mentah name AV.eat meat that and meat that raw 'Tono ate the meat and the meat was raw 27.
John menembak orang itu dan orang itu mati name AV.shoot man that and man that dead 'John shot the man and the man died' The combination of the two clauses in (26) and (27) yield a complex sentence. Quirk et al (1985) call these sentences complex transitive because they combine an object with an (object) complement so as to produce an SVCO pattern. The complex sentence could be analyzed as a sentence which undergoes a reduction because the so-called secondary predicate in surface syntax does not have a subject. However, such a predicate is analyzed as a predicate that requires subject argument (Rothstein, 2004, Levin and Hovav, 1995, Simpson 1983. That the secondary predicate, in and of itself is an argument-taking predicate can be interpreted in terms of event semantics. The event semantic representation of (24a), based on Rothstein (2004), is given in (28).

28.
ee1e2[ e = s (e1  e2)  EAT (e1)  Ag (e1)=TONO  Th ( The representation (28) states that there are two events denoted by the verbal predicate memakan 'eat' and the (secondary) predicate mentah 'raw, which refers to a situation in which not only the predicate memakan (which takes an argument) but also the predicate expressed by the adjective mentah.
A secondary predicate such as (25), although potentially appears after NP objects in Indonesian; however, in general, it syntactically precedes the object. In other words, the secondary predicate gets its syntactic position between the verb and the NP object.

Conclusion
Effectiveness is a complex linguistic problem (in Indonesian). On the one hand, it can show the relationship between syntax and phonology (syntax-phonology interface). The copula adalah, for example, can be omitted entirely in the realm of syntax and pausing emerges (in the realm of phonology). Both of these domains interact with each other to demonstrate the acceptability of the sentence. On the other hand, effectiveness can also be shown in the reduction of sentence elements. The reduction may occur in a simplex sentence (containing one predicate) and complex sentences (containing two predicates).