Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 4

Papers from the Fourth International
Conference on Asian Geolinguistics

ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015 - 2017 “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Studies in Asian Geolinguistics, Monograph Series No. 4

Papers from the Fourth International
Conference on Asian Geolinguistics
Report of ILCAA Joint Research Project 2015–2017“Studies in Asian Geolinguistics”
First published 2018
Edited by Hiroyuki Suzuki & Mitsuaki Endo
Copyright © 2018 Individual Contributors

ISBN 978-4-86337-291-7
This is an electronic publication in PDF format.
This publication is offered under Creative Commons International License
Attribution 4.0.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Published by
Research Institute for
Languages and Cultures ofAsia and Africa (ILCAA)
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
3-11-1, Asahi-cho, Fuchu-shi,
183-8534, Tokyo, JAPANhttps://publication.aa-ken.jp/

Table of Contents
Program.......................................................................................................................................... i
Multamia R.M.T. Lauder and Allan F. Lauder, A Real Time Geolinguistic Study of Language
Change in Bekasi, West Java................................................................................................. 1
Sri Munawarah, An Overview of Language Variation in Depok, West Java............................... 12
Mesiyarti Munir, Language Contact and Language Change in the History of Betawi Ora
Dialect ................................................................................................................................ 20
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin, Junaini Kasdan, and Harishon Radzi, The Similarities andDissimilarities of Satun Malay Spoken in Malaysia and Thailand: A Geo-linguistic
Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 33
Youichi Nagato, Arabic loanwords in languages around the Indian Ocean, and what this tells us
about the transmission of Arabic words ............................................................................. 43
Rei Fukui, Palatalization and hypercorrection in the history of Korean ................................... 52
Mitsuaki Endo, Correlation between onset and vowel, and the principle of “wider
distribution” as revealed in the changing process of the forms for “rain” in Tai-Kadai... 74
Chitsuko Fukushima, Variation and Change of Adjectives in Niigata Dialects ......................... 79
Mika Fukazawa, Geographical Distribution and Patterns of Basic Ainu Vocabulary in Hattori
and Chiri (1960) ................................................................................................................. 91
Satoko Shirai, A Geolinguistic Analysis of “Rain” and “Fish” in the Western Sichuan Ethnic
Corridor Languages ......................................................................................................... 104
Hiroyuki Suzuki and Sonam Wangmo, Geolinguistic Approach to the Route of Tibetic
Loanwords in Lhagang Choyu ......................................................................................... 115
Shinsuke Kishie and Yukako Sakoguchi, Distribution and diffusion of the Dialectal

Formatives in the Region of Seto Inland Sea ................................................................... 127
Agusniar Dian Savitri, Bhâsa Bhâbhien as a Madurese Language Dialect: The Case of
Bawean isolect on Bawean Island .................................................................................... 135
Supriatnoko, Javanese Language in Cirebon: The Language at the Bordrline ....................... 147
Suprayogi, Geographical Language Variation in Pringsewu Regency of Lampung
Province ............................................................................................................................ 160
Nadia Almira Sagitta, The Mandar Language Isolate in Makassar, South Sulawesi ............... 169

Cover photo:

Humanities Faculty of Universitas Indonesia.
Retrieved from http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/114886365.jpg

Program of the Fourth International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics

Date: May 4 - 5, 2018
Venue: Room 4101, 4th Building, Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia

DAY 1 Friday May 4
9:15-10:15
10:15-10:30

Registration
Opening ceremony

Dean of Faculty of Humanities;
Prof. Mitsuaki Endo

Multamia R.M.T. Lauder

A Real Time Geolinguistic Study of Language

10:30-12:00

and Allan F. Lauder

Change in Bekasi, West Java

Chair:Sri Munawarah

An Overview of Language Variation in Depok,

Allan
LauderWest Java
Mesiyarti Munir

Language Contact and Language Change in the
History of Betawi Ora Dialect

12:00-13:30

Lunch & Friday prayer
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin,

The Similarities and Dissimilarities of Satun

Adriana Santa Tinggom,

Malay Spoken in Malaysia and Thailand: A

Siti Noraini Hamzah,

Geo-linguistic Analysis

13:30-15:00

Junaini Kasdan,

Chair:

Harishon Radzi

Multamia

Junaini Kasdan, NorThe Variant of Emotion Lexicons in Langkawi

LauderHashimah Jalaluddin,

Island: A Geolinguistic Analysis

Harishon Radzi, &Adriana Santa Tinggom
Yoichi Nagato
15:00-15:30

Arabic word sharing in Indian ocean languages

Coffee breakiRei Fukui

Palatalization and hypercorrection in the historyof Korean

15:30-17:00

Mitsuaki Endo

Correlation between onset and vowel, and the

Chair:

principle of “wider distribution” as revealed in

Shinsuke

the changing process of the forms for “rain” inKishieTai-Kadai
Chitsuko Fukushima

Variation and Change of Adjectives in Niigata
Dialects

18:00-19:30

DinnerDAY 2 Saturday May 5
9:30-10:30

Mika Fukazawa

Chair:
Chitsuko

Ainu Vocabulary in Hattori and Chiri (1960)
Satoko Shirai

Fukushima
10:30-11:00

11:00-12:00
Chair:Rei Fukui

12:00-13:00

Coffee break
Hiroyuki Suzuki & Sonam

Geolinguistic approach to the route of Tibetic

Wangmo,loanwords in Lhagang Choyu

Shinsuke Kishie andDistribution and diffusion of the Dialectal

Yukako Sakoguchi

Formatives in the Region of Seto Inland Sea

LunchSupriatnoko

Nor
Jalaluddin

Bhâsa Bhâbhien as a Madurese Language Dialect:
The Case of Bawean isolect on Bawean Island

13:00-14:30

Hashimah

A geolinguistic approach to the basic vocabulary
in the Western Sichuan Ethnic Corridor languages

Agusniar Dian Savitri
Chair:

Geographical Distribution and Patterns of Basic

Javanese Language in Cirebon: the Language at
the Bordrline

Suprayogi Salim

Language Distribution and Reconstruction ofMigration in Northern Pringsewu, Lampung
Province.

ii

14:30-15:00

Coffee break

15:00-16:00

Nadia Almira Sagitta

Sulawesi

Chair:
Mitsuaki

The Mandar language isolate in Makassar, SouthAtsuko Utsumi

Address Terms in IndonesianEndo
16:00-16:30

Closing ceremony andphoto sessioniii

A Real Time Geolinguistic Study of Language Change
in Bekasi, West Java
Multamia R.M.T. Lauder and Allan F. Lauder
Department of Linguistics, Humanities Faculty, Universitas Indonesia

Abstract
Longitudinal geolinguistic studies can reveal the extent of change in language areas over time.
This is particularly useful in situations where there is language contact as in Indonesia with its
diverse patchwork of indigenous, regional languages, many of which are under pressure fromlanguage change and language loss. Geolinguistics can be of great use in understanding theprocesses involved in such situations. The present study focuses on the Bekasi region in West
Java, an area to the east of the capital city, Jakarta. Three main languages are found there:
Javanese, Sundanese and Betawi Malay. We might ask how much can these languages changeover a relatively short period of time and can we find evidence of language loss.
This paper presents evidence from geolinguistic research carried out in the area over a thirtytwo year period, starting in 1978. We draw on three geolinguistic studies, done over that time
period: in 1978, 1998, and 2010. The three studies are comparable because they all used exactly
the same locations, informants, questionnaire, data gathering and method of analysis. The useof a consistent methodology provides the empirical basis for a real time study. The comparisonof the maps for the same lexical items, sampled across time, allows us to see degrees ofdifference in the distribution of language variation, in particular whether the degree of changes
are such that the language is endangered.

Keywords
Geolinguistics, language change, rate of change, real time study, language contact

Introduction
Over the course of a human life time, anybody may observe that certain aspects of their language havechanged (Sankoff, 2017). New words appear, coming into widespread use; older words become
outdated and fall into disuse. This is part of the phenomenon of language change (Aitchison, 2001).
From a scientific perspective, language change leads us to ask such questions as whether present day
languages that resemble one another are related and share a common ancestor language, and what
phenomena are involved in language change. A further question is what the rate of language change is(Nettle, 1999).
In historical linguistics, there are methods for establishing the time frames for significant change inthe lexicon of language. Swadesh (1952, 1955) introduced the idea that comparison of lexical data could
be used to work out the time line of language change. This was influential in the field of lexicostatistics(McMahon and McMahon, 2013). From early on, the assumption was that language change wasconstant, that the basic vocabulary was most resistant to change and that change occurred over periodsof thousands of years (Gudschinsky, 1956).
More recently, genetic and cultural models of change have been used in computational modellingto estimate the rate of language change (Baker, 2008, Zuraw, 2006). Such studies also suggest thatsignificant changes to a language may occur over periods of a thousand or many thousands of years.
The present study presents a review of geolinguistic studies that offer evidence from language useat three different points of time. The research was carried out in Bekasi, an area lying to the east of1

Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. It involves three indigenous languages, all members of theAustronesian family of languages: Javanese, Sundanese and Betawi Malay.
Empirical evidence of the rate of language change, or more specifically a rapid rate of change, is
important firstly, because it has implications for the assumptions and criteria that historical linguistics
and computational models are based on. Secondly, identifying extremely rapid language change isimportant because it relates to the the well-documented phenomenon of language endangerment andlanguage death. It is suggested that development, globalization and modernity are accelerating the paceand scale of language change to an extent that has never been seen before (Crystal, 2000, Nettle andRomaine, 2000). According to UNESCO’s World Language Report (Barreña et al., 2000, Martí et al.,2005), intergenerational transmission is occurring smoothly in only 30% of the world’s languages. This
process is eroding linguistic diversity, leading to loss of diversity, of knowledge and weakening of local
identity.

Language Change
As Aitchison (2001: ix) observes, language change is a field of study that involves a particularly wide
range of areas. See for example Labov (2010). Therefore, we focus here on the aspects of languagechange that are relevant to our study, namely language change in relation to geolinguistics, rate ofchange, and language contact.
The study of language change arose in the field of historical linguistics and the two terms are closely
linked (Aitchison, 2001: ix). This can be seen in the following definitions of language change:
In historical linguistics, a general term referring to change within a language over a period of time,
seen as a universal and unstoppable process (Crystal, 2008).
In historical linguistics, the study of the diachronic process(es) of change in language elements andlanguage systems (diachronic linguistics) (Bussmann, 1996).
Historical linguistics focused on tracing earlier forms of a language and showing the relationships
between languages in the form of genetic trees representing members of language families. It also gave
rise to geolinguistics which studies the geographic or spatial distribution of language areas (Tillery andBailey, 2003: 351).
All aspects of language are involved in language change, though most attention has been paid tophonology and lexis, where change is most noticeable and frequent (Crystal, 2008). The present study
focuses on lexical items and gathers phonological data for all variants found.
Another phenomenon that is related to language change and relevant to the present paper is that oflanguage contact (Hickey, 2010, Thomason, 2006, Trudgill, 1989). Crystal (2008) defines language
contact as:
A term used in sociolinguistics to refer to a situation of geographical continuity or close social
proximity (and thus of mutual influence) between languages or dialects.
Contact between languages provide the necessary conditions for such things as an increase in loan words
or lexical borrowing, and phonological change (Labov, 2010).

Methods
This article discusses from a language change perspective three geolinguistic studies that were all
performed in Bekasi, an administrative area lying to the east of Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia. The
first of the the studies was Tawangsih (1978), the second, twenty years later was Andriani (1998), andthe third Ramawirawan (2010). The reseach design has two elements: the specifics for each of theindividual studies, and the overall method for comparing them.
At the time of the 1978 study, three languages were reported in use in the area: Javanese, Sundaneseand Betawi Malay. These languages are among Indonesia’s largest languages. Information on speaker
populations is given in Simons and Fennig (2018). The number of speakers of Javanese is given as
approximately 84 million, Sundanese 34 million, and Betawi Malay 5 million.
The individual research designs were the same. That is, the second and third studies were resurveys
that kept all details of their research design the same as the first study in 1978. The details of this are as
follows:• The data was collected in a total of 34 villages which sampled the whole area evenly.

2

•

•

•

•

•

•

Informants at the time of the 1978 study were middle aged people who had relatively low mobility
and were considered by other members of the speech community to be ‘typical’ users of thelanguage. In the second study in 1998, and the third in 2010, the researchers returned to the same
household where data was gathered in 1978. In 1998, in many cases, the 1978 informant was still
alive but now in old age. Where the informant was still alive, the same informant was used again.
Where the original informant had passed away, a family member who was of the same or nearly
the same generation as the earlier informant was used in their place. The criteria and protocols forchoosing informants reduced the likelihood that demography could be a hidden variable that might
have influenced the data.
Data on a set of lexical items was elicited from the informants using a questionnaire based on the
Swadesh 200 list. This list was established by Morris Swadesh for work in lexicostatistic dating(Swadesh, 1955). The questionnaire contained 218 words. The words in the list were chosen topossess two properties: universality and resistance to change. By universality, we mean that thewords are found in practically all of the world’s languages (Youn et al., 2016). These words areoften referred to as basic words (Greenhill and Gray, 2012, Tadmor et al., 2010). Basic words areusually high frequency words (Calude and Pagel, 2014). Basic words are known to be more resistant
to change than other words. The use of the Swadesh list for research in historical linguistics andlanguage change is widespread and relevant to geolinguistic studies of Austronesian languages(Greenhill et al., 2008, Heggarty, 2010, Holman et al., 2011).
Researchers recorded the responses immediately using IPA on the questionnaire. The data gathering
sessions were done with other members of the family and community present. These provided
feedback affirming or otherwise commenting on the informant’s responses. These onlookers could
strengthen the reliability of the responses.
Two kinds of maps were produced from the data: isogloss maps and dialectometry maps, sometimes
called spider-web maps. Each lexical item has its own map, and in addition, isoglosses are bundledaccording to semantic field or some other grouping. Another map is produced which aggregate the218 basic words into one map showing all isoglosses. In the isogloss maps, the thickness of thebundles of isoglosses allow us to distinguish how much of a difference there is between adjacentareas. The other kind of map is the dialectometry maps. These show degree of sameness ordifference between areas. The methods of geolinguistics help us to map the variation of lexical
items (Chambers and Trudgill, 1980).
In this paper, we compare the results from three different studies. By comparing the maps from thefirst study with the maps from the subsequent studies, we can see whether language boundaries
have moved or if the degree of difference has increased or decreased. The larger the number of
lexemes that have changed, the more extensive the change. This is the macro-context of the research
design.
The present research uses the approach of replicating an earlier study so that an earlier study can becompared with a later study holding all other variables the same. This approach is considered themost desirable but because of practical difficulties in doing it is extremely rare (Cukor-Avila andBailey, 2013, Tillery and Bailey, 2003). The methodology of redoing a research study at a later time
is known as a ‘real time’ study. Real time and apparent time are terms describing different research
designs in sociolinguistics . Both of them concern diachronic or longitudinal phenomena, but theydiffer in terms of their sampling. Real time studies collect data at intervals over a particular period.
They do this by replicating the research design for the first study across all subsequent studies.
Apparent time studies on the other hand collect data at only one time. However, they get separate
samples from different age groups in the speech community. The distribution of linguistic variationin the different age groups is a surrogate for sampling at chronological intervals (Sankoff, 2006,
Turell, 2003). Further reading can be found in Cukor-Avila and Bailey (2013). The issue of realtime and apparent time methodologies in geolinguistics can be found in Tillery and Bailey (2003).
Discussion on the lifespan as a sampling frame is covered in Sankoff (2017).

3

Results
Three linguistic areas were identified in the Tawangsih (1978) study. In the west is a Betawi Malay
linguistic area in the districts Cabangbungin, Babelan, Tarumajaya, Bekasi, Setu, and Pondokgede. In
the south is a Sundanese linguistic area in the following districts: Pondokgede, Setu, Cibarusa,
Lemahabang, and Pebayuran. There is also a Javanese linguistic area in the villages Karangharja,
Sukamanah, and Sindangsari. This is a small ‘speech island’, surrounded by a Betawi Malay speaking
area.
Isogloss data
A single isogloss map was made for each of the 218 lexical items in all three studies.
Individual isogloss map
The following maps show the isoglosses for the word BANTAL (pillow) in the 1978, 1998 and 2008
studies.
042/78 Bantal

042/98 Bantal

The 1978 map (left) and 1998 map (right) above show that for the word (042) BANTAL ‘pillow’, there
are three words: [bantal] which detected as a Betawi Malay word used in villages 1-10, 12-13, 22-23,
25-33, [kaŋulu] which recognized as a Javanese word used in villages 25, 27, 34, and [aŋgəl] which isa Sundanese word used in villages 11, 24-25. The maps from 1978 and 1998 show that all three words
from three different languages have persisted and there has been no change, either phonetic or lexical.
However, there have been changes in the geographical distribution for all of them: the use of [bantal]
spreads in villages 1-10, 12-13, 22-34, [kaŋulu] was only used in two villages 25, 27, and [aŋgəl] invillages in the south 11, 14-21.

4

The map on the left is map (042) BANTAL‘pillow’ from Ramawirawan (2010). In this map
we can see firstly that there are only two lexical
items, namely the Betawi Malay word [bantal]
and the Sundanese word [aŋgəl]. The use of theJavanese word [kaŋulu] in the 1978 map invillages 25, 27, dan 34 is gone. In the 1998 map,
the word [kaŋulu] is only found in use in villages
25 and 27. This means the disappearance of theJavanese word [kaŋulu] and its replacement with[bantal].
The sequence of maps shows clearly the
progressive replacement of the Javanse wordwith a Betawi Malay one. The former Javanese
speech area, villages 25, 27, and 34 formed aspeech ‘island’, surrounded by the Betawi Malay
speech area. We see the possibility that smaller
speech ‘islands’ could be more susceptible tolanguage change, especially if it involves
intensive language contact.

Bundle of isoglosses maps
While the individual lexical item isogloss maps provide a detailed picture of lexical variation and thegeospatial patterning, the bundling or grouping of all 218 maps into a single map allow us to visualize
the language and dialect boundaries.
The isoglosses on the 218 language maps, taken together, from 1978 and 1998 shows no marked
change for the position of the language area boundaries. Specifically, we note that the boundaries
separating the three different languages areas still pass between the same data observation points. The
1998 map shows basically the same pattern of isogloss bundles as the 1978 map. There are three main
language areas: Betawi Malay in the west, Sundanese in the south and Javanese in the northeast partiallysurrounded by Betawi Malay.
However, an important change can also be seen. The number of isoglosses demarking the limits of
the Javanese language area, has reduced, showing on the maps as thinning of the bundle of isoglosses.
This thinning has occurred because, during those twenty years, a process of language contact andlinguistic accommodation has occurred in the Javanese ‘enclave’ with a shift toward the Betawi Malay
and Sundanese languages spoken by the surrounding communities.

5Berkas Isoglos 78

Berkas Isoglos 98

The isogloss bundles in the 2010 map show amarkedly different picture. There are now only
two language areas, separated by the thickbundle of isoglosses separating the Betawi
Malay area in the northwest and the Sundanesearea in the southeast. The Javanese area,
villages 25, 27, and 34, is gone. The Javanese
language enclave, formerly surrounded by
Betawi Malay is no longer distinguishable. The
processes of language contact has led tolanguage loss.
When interpreting this data, it should beborne in mind that any change shown in an
isogloss map reflect the change in language use
based solely on the lexical and phonologicalfeatures. It does not tell us if any syntacticchanges have taken place. Nor does it convey
or imply anything about the attitudes ofindividuals or communities about theselanguages or their boundaries.
In particular, linguists should be vigilant to prevent such findings being exploited for socio-politicalends where communities use the findings to support initiatives that seek formal recognition in shifts inthe boundaries of their languages.
Dialectometry Data
While isogloss maps show us the geographical distribution of language variants, dialectometry gives us
quantitative information about the degree of difference between neighbouring observation points. The
results of the dialectometry analysis are a way of quantifying the extent of the impact that the processof linguistic accommodation between speakers of Javanese in isolated areas and the speakers of Betawi
and Sundanese in the areas surrounding them.

6

The degree of difference between contiguous language areas is derived from dialectometry analysis
which is expressed as a percentage. Séguy (1973) has related the degree of difference to different kindsof linguistic variation by dividing the scale into bands. Séguy’s band scale goes from no difference todifferent language: ≤ 20% no difference, different speech 21-30%, 31-50% different sub-dialect, 5180% different dialect, and ≥ 81% different languages.
The dialectometry analysis for the data from 1978 show that observations points 25, 27, and 34
showed differences in linguistic variation which was above 81% - a difference of language. This data,cross-checked with on the ground observation, showed clearly that Javanese was in use at these points.
However, by 1998, between observation point 34 and the points around it where Betawi was spoken,
the degree of difference had dropped substantially to 31-50% a difference only of sub-dialect.
Meanwhile, the difference at observation point 27, had dropped by 1998 to below 20% - no difference.
Dialektometri Leksikal 78

0--20%
21--30%31--50%51--80%80%

Dialektometri Leksikal 98

Tak Beda
Beda Wicara
Beda Subdialek
Beda Dialek
Beda Bahasa

0--20%
21--30%31--50%51--80%80%

Tak Beda
Beda Wicara
Beda Subdialek
Beda Dialek
Beda Bahasa

Based on the calculation of dialectometry, it can be seen that the Javanese vocabulary used twenty years
ago at observation points 27 and 34 have tended to change. These changes have occurred primarily asa result of adapting words from the Betawi vocabulary into the Bekasi variant of Javanese. In addition,
the area along the border between the observation points for Betawi and Sundanese (10/11; 12/11;
13/14; 31/15; 30/16; 30/20; 22/21; 23/24; and 26/25) has showed a decrease in the degree of difference.

7

The findings from the dialectometry analysis in
Ramawirawan (2010) is shown in the 2010 map(left). It shows clearly that the degree ofdifference separating the three language areas has
significantly lessened. In particular, the line that
divided the Betawi Malay and the Sundaneseareas has been replaced with a double line thatindicates only a difference of dialect, and nolonger a difference of language. Whereas the areain the previous studies showed three language
areas, we now have two dialects. Further, there islittle indication of the former existence of aJavanese language area. The difference atobservation point 25, 27, and 34 in 2010 has
dropped to below 20%. Such a small differencemeans that there is no difference in words or
pronounciation between people in the former
Javanese villages and the Betawi Malay villages.

This is a marked change. It most likely means that there has been intensive contact between villages,
made possible by the development of better transport infrastructure, and by the use of Indonesian inschools and the mass media. The changes observed in the 2010 study exceed those described in thosefound in the 1998 research (Lauder and Lauder, 2016).

Discussion
The results from the real time geolinguistic research in Bekasi show clearly that during the 32 years
between the 1978 and 2010 studies, language change has occurred with the Javanese, Sundanese andBetawi Malay languages.
A comparison of the 1978 with the 1998 findings show a change in the distribution of language
variation. However, the boundaries between the Javanese, Sundanese and Betawi Malay areas have not
moved; while the degree of difference between them has lessened. However, the research done in 2010
gives a different picture of language change. The isogloss bundles that had marked the location of theJavanese language area have been reduced to the point that the language area is seen as having
disappeared. Meanwhile, the dialectometry calculations show that the degree of difference between theJavanese area with its neighbors have lessened to the smallest level on the scale. This picture is clear
evidence of the process that could lead to language loss.
Throughout the historical linguistics literature, we are given to understand that language change
proceeds slowly in relation to a human life-span and takes a thousand years. The studies that measurechange make use of the basic words in the Swadesh list which are considered to be highly resistant tochange compared with other words in the lexicon (Gudschinsky, 1956).
Language change is a phenomenon that affects all the world’s languages. Languages are always
subject to change. What needs to be taken into consideration is the rate of language change. Change iscertain, but there remain questions about whether change is constant or fluctuates.
The real time, diachronic research done in Bekasi which used the Swadesh basic word list provides
evidence that language change which seems to be working at a rate that is faster than a time frame ofthousands of years. It seems that the factors that are likely responsible for speeding up the rate oflanguage change in the multilingual Indonesian context are intense language contact between
neighboring languages. Such contact is principally in the form of borrowing and assimilation as set out
by Dixon (1997: 15):
If two languages are in contact - some of the speakers of each having a degree of competence inthe other - they are likely to borrow lexemes, grammatical categories and techniques, and some8

grammatical forms (in at least one direction, often both directions) and gradually become moresimilar.
We also note in particular the loss of the Javanese language area. This is somewhat surprising, giventhat Javanese, with 84 million speakers, is the largest regional language in Indonesia and is notconsidered to be endangered at this time. We note that the (former) Javanese language area was an‘island’, surrounded by the Betawi Malay area. As a kind of linguistic island, it was isolated from themain Javanese speaking areas. This could have been one of the reasons for its loss. A similar situation
can be found in a study of Nonthaburi Malay in Thailand (Tadmor, 2004).
The findings of the geolinguistic research in Bekasi can make a contribution to our understandingof the rate of change in multilingual contexts, but things are likely to be different in monolingual areas.

Conclusion
The methods of geolinguistics, with the production of language maps, are a tried and tested method to
get an accurate picture of the distribution of language variation and also, with real time studies, of
language change. This makes geolinguistics of value to understanding and documenting the more than
700 regional languages found in the world’s largest archipelagic country.
There is now evidence from the geolinguistic study in Bekasi that language change can occur atmuch more rapid rates than previously assumed, and this can be the starting point for further studies
which investigate in more detail what factors are implicated in such a high rate of change. Further, andalso important is to do further research that can give us a theoretical model than can account for rapidchange and also provide a benchmark for rate of language change. More linguistic evidence fromlanguage use would be useful to supplement computational approaches that model language change.
Finally, the finding that this study reveals that language change may occur at a fast rate, has
implications for the phenomenon of language endangerment, language loss, and language death. If
language change at this rate is widespread, it means that our response to it should be prompt andeffective. This is because the loss of languages is closely linked to personal identity, and the los ofhuman knowledge, culture and heritage.

References
Aitchison, Jean. 2001. Language Change: Progress or Decay? 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Andriani, Linda. 1998. Evaluasi Perubahan Leksikal: Studi Kasus Kabupaten Bekasi, Skripsi Sarjana
Sastra. Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Indonesia.
Baker, Adam. 2008. Computational approaches to the study of language change. Language andLinguistics Compass, 2(2), 289-307.
Barreña, Andoni, Etxebarria, Maitena, Idiazabal, Itziar, Juaristi, Patxi, Junyent, Carme et al. 2000.
World Languages Review: A Preliminary Approach. In Linguistic Heritage of India and Asia.
eds. Omkar N. Koul and L. Devaki, 318-336. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Translated by Trauth
Gregory P. and Kazzazi Kerstin. London & New York: Routledge.
Calude, Andreea S, and Pagel, Mark. 2014. Frequency of use and basic vocabulary. Multilingual
Cognition and Language Use: Processing and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing, 45-73.
Chambers, J. K., and Trudgill, Peter. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.
Cambridge [Eng.] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th Edition. The Language Llibrary.
Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Cukor-Avila, Patricia, and Bailey, Guy. 2013. Real Time and Apparent Time. In The Handbook ofLanguage Variation and Change, Second Edition. eds. J. K. Chambers and Natalie SchillingEstes, 239-262. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

9Dixon, Robert M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Greenhill, Simon J, and Gray, Russell D. 2012. Basic vocabulary and Bayesian phylolinguistics:
Issues of understanding and representation. Diachronica, 29(4), 523-537.
Greenhill, Simon J., Blust, Robert, and Gray, Russell D. 2008. The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary
Database: From Bioinformatics to Lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 4, 271.
Gudschinsky, Sarah C. 1956. The ABC's of lexicostatistics (glottochronology). Word, 12(2), 175-210.
Heggarty, Paul. 2010. Beyond lexicostatistics: How to get more out of 'word list' comparisons.
Diachronica, 27(2), 301-324.
Hickey, Raymond ed. 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Malden, MA and Oxford: WileyBlackwell.
Holman, Eric W, Brown, Cecil H, Wichmann, Søren, Müller, André, Velupillai, Viveka et al. 2011.
Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current
Anthropology, 52(6), 841-875.
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change: Vol. III Cognitive and Cultural Factors.
Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lauder, Multamia R.M.T., and Lauder, Allan F. 2016. A Longitudinal Geolinguistic Study ofLanguage Change in West Java, Indonesia. ed. Jean-Michel Filippi. In Papers from the Third
International Conference on Asian Geolinguistics (ICAG 3): 1-18. Phnom Penh, Cambodia,
23-24 May 2016. Royal University of Phnom Penh.
Martí, Fèlix, Ortega, Paul, Idiazabal, Itziar, Barreña, Andoni, Juaristi, Patxi et al. eds. 2005. Words
and Worlds : World Languages Review. vol. 52. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Clevedon [England] ; Buffalo [N.Y.]: Multilingual Matters.
McMahon, April, and McMahon, Robert. 2013. Lexicostatistics and Glottochronology. In The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. ed. Carol A. Chapelle. London: Willey-Blackwell.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Is the rate of linguistic change constant? Lingua, 108(2-3), 119-136.
Nettle, Daniel, and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s
Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramawirawan, Catra Ditya. 2010. Perubahan Leksikal di Bekasi, Skripsi Sarjana Humaniora Program
Studi Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya, Universitas Indonesia.
Sankoff, Gillian. 2006. Age: Apparent time and real time. In Encyclopedia of Language andLinguistics, Second Edition. Vol. 1. ed. Keith Brown, 110-116. Oxford: Elsevier.
Sankoff, Gillian. 2017. Language change across the lifespan. Annual Review of Linguistics.
Séguy, Jean. 1973. La Dialectométrie dans l'Atlas Linguistique de la Gascogne. In Revue deLinguistique Romane. 37, 1-24. Paris: Société Linguistique Romane.
Simons, Gary F., and Fennig, Charles D. eds. 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Twentyfirst edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts: With Special
Reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 96(4), 452-463.
Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of
American Linguistics, 121-137.
Tadmor, Uri. 2004. Dialect endangerment: The case of Nonthaburi Malay. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land-en Volkenkunde, 160(4), 511-531.
Tadmor, Uri, Haspelmath, Martin, and Taylor, Bradley. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic
vocabulary. Diachronica, 27(2), 226-246.
Tawangsih, Multamia R.M. 1978. Bahasa di Daerah Bekasi: Sebuah Kajian Lokabasa, Skripsi Sarjana
Sastra. Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Indonesia.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2006. Language Change and Language Contact. In Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics, Second Edition. Volume 6. ed. Keith Brown, 339-346. Oxford: Elsevier.
Tillery, Jan, and Bailey, Guy. 2003. Approaches to real time in dialectology and sociolinguistics.
World Englishes, 22(4), 351-365.
Trudgill, Peter. 1989. Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In Language Change: Contributions
to the Study of its Causes. eds. Leiv Egil Breivik and Ernst Häkon Jahr, 227-237. Berlin and
New York: De Gruyter.

10Turell, Maria Teresa. 2003. Apparent and real time in studies of linguistic change and variation.
Noves SL. Revista de Sociolingüística, 1-10.
Youn, Hyejin, Sutton, Logan, Smith, Eric, Moore, Cristopher, Wilkins, Jon F et al. 2016. On theuniversal structure of human lexical semantics. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 113(7), 1766-1771.
Zuraw, Kie. 2006. Language Change: Probabilistic Models. In Encyclopedia of Language andLinguistics, Second Edition. Volume 6. ed. Keith Brown, 349-357. Oxford: Elsevier.

11

An Overview of Language Variation in Depok, West JavaSri MunawarahaaDepartment of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Indonesia

Abstract
Depok as an autonomous region was projected by the government to be a residential, education,
tourism, and water absorption area. Increasing educational facilities and public facilities such as
malls also have a significant impact in the development of Depok City. Depok's demographic
structure, along with an increasing number of means of transportation, enables high levels ofinteraction, even to the outskirts. Based on the history and geographical location, there is ahypothesis stating that in Depok there are speakers that speak Betawi and Sundanese. Depok's
geographical location directly adjacent to DKI Jakarta, Bogor, Bekasi, and Tangerang is also
expected to affect the linguistic situation. In addition, the city of Depok has transformed into an
urban city. Several colleges, apartments, and star hotels have made the city of Depok as anurbanization destination.
The city of Depok is directly adjacent to the city of Jakarta and is a buffer to be directed as
residential, educational, trade, tourism, and water absorption areas. Meanwhile, the southern partborders with Bogor, which was once a municipal entity. Depok's population also grew rapidly
after joining with several sub-districts from Bogor. Therefore, the authors are interested toreview the research that has been done Sandra Dewi (1997) and Yohanes Wahyu (2010). If Dewi
focuses only on Betawi language in Depok, Wahyu (2010) examines the languages that exist in
Depok along with the joining of several areas of Bogor.
The emergence of variations in language, such as dialect and its intricate dissemination,
makes dialectology an appropriate science for obtaining visual data on the spatial distribution of
language variations. Finally, the map in the dialectology will provide basic information to the
public on the approximate number of regional cultures and their variations throughout Indonesia(Lauder, 2007: 4).
There was found the differences between the research result of Dewi (1997) with research
result of Wahyu (2010). The research conducted by Dewi showed that there is one language in
Depok, that is Betawi Ora. After thirteen years since that research, Wahyu showed that in Depok
there are two dialects that have quite high differences. Different dialects in Depok can be said asdifferent languages. However, the reality on the ground shows that Sundanese in Depok is
contaminated with Betawi so that the difference level only reaches dialect differences level (lessthan 70%).
Keywords: Language variation, dialectology, Betawi language, Sundanese language

1

Introduction

Regional languages are a valuable asset of the nation. In the explanation of Article 36 of the 1945
Constitution it is implied that the state respects and maintains the languages that its supporting societies
recognize as a symbol of social identity. Regional languages continue to grow along with thedevelopment of the area itself, and can even affect the surrounding area. For example, Depok, which
originated from a sub-district in Kewedanaan neighborhood (Sub Regency) of Parung District, Bogor
Regency, experienced astonishing development in various sectors: development, economy, education,and the development of language. Depok has continued to evolve from the status of the sub-district into12

an administrative city (1981) and more recently changed again to a municipality (1999) and then asubdistrict (2010).
Linguistic issues are an ever-growing issue. Various factors, such as social events, politics, history, andthe dynamics of the life of Indonesians when interacting or in language contact situations with regionaland foreign languages, encourage the need for a guide in managing language as a national cultural
treasure. Similarly, language development in Depok may also experience developments that are
influenced by these factors.
Before holding the status of the district, Depok was only 12 km 2 of private land bought by
Dutch merchants. Thus, it is possible that formerly the Dutch language was used in Depok. However,after becoming part of the district in Kawedanan in the Bogor area, Depok is expected to see many
speakers speak Sundanese. Rapid progress has made Depok change its status back into an administrativecity. In addition, Depok has also served as an autonomous region as well as a projected as a residentialarea, while Jakarta has become the center of government.
According to Irsyam (2017), formerly Depok was only a remote village in the middle ofnowhere. On May 18, 1696, a Dutch merchant who was a former high-ranking VOC official, Cornelis
Cahstelein, bought land in Depok and a few areas of South Jakarta and Ratujaya Bojong Gede. In
1871, the Dutch Government allowed the Depok region to form its own government and president. The
government was a Gementee ruled by a president as the highest governing body.
Until 1942, Gemeente Depok held power over sub-districts under the mandate (9 foremen) andassisted by village police barracks and cumitir or minister of barns. Initially, the total area of
the Gemeente Depok territory was only 1,244 hectares, but was later abolished in 1952 after anagreement of the right of release between the Government of Indonesia and the leadershipof Gemeente Depok. (Irsyam, 2017)
In naming Depok, according to local elders in Depok, the name Depok comes from theword De Volk meaning 'settlement to be proud of'. There is also a suggestion made by Chastelein that
Depok stands for De Everste Protestante Organisatie van Christianen (Irsyam, 2017). Meanwhile, in
Sundanese, the word depok means 'hermitage'. Until now the origin of the name Depok is still debated.
The government's projection of Depok as an autonomous region for resettlement, education, tourism,
and water absorption creates new speculation that can affect language mapping. Increased access to
education and public facilities such as malls also provide a significant impact communications between
different language groups. Depok’s demographic situatin sees an increasing means of transportation
which allow high levels of interaction even in peripheral areas. Based on its history and geographicallocation a hypothesis has emerged that states that in Depok there are speakers who speak Betawi and
Sundanese. Depok's geographical location is directly adjacent to DKI Jakarta, Bogor, Bekasi, andTangerang and this is also expected to affect the language situation. In addition, the city of Depok has
transformed into an urban city. Several colleges and hotels have made Depok City have attracted people
and thus accelerate urbanization.
The emergence of variations in language, such as dialects and its spread, makes dialectology anappropriate field which can provide visual data on the spatial distribution of language variation. The
geolinguistic maps can provide basic information on the approximate number of regional cultures andlanguages and their variations throughout Indonesia (Lauder, 2007: 4).
As a rule, dialectology research focuses on rural areas as the object of its research. However, the present
research is an urban dialectology study. The language situation in rural and urban areas aredifferent. The condition of the language in urban areas is more complex than in rural ones because it canbe affected by migration. The growth of the city of Depok as a settlement city, has experienced
population movement from the towns around Depok and this has led to the contact of languages that
became the object of dialectology research.
According to Holmes (2013: 131), language is used to characterize people into certain groups
and to create different aspects as part of their social identity. The division of community groups also
creates language variations of each group. Language variations are classified into two types, namely
regional variation and social variation. Communities in a particular region have different characteristics
in their language to people in other areas. This is what regional variations mean. This variation is

13

influenced by geography (Wardhaugh, 2006: 40). Meanwhile, social variations are influenced byvarious social factors, such as age, sex, occupation, and social class.
The city of Depok is directly adjacent to the city of Jakarta and acts as a buffer zone withfunctions such as residential, educational, trade, tourism, and water catchment area. Meanwhile, thesouthern part borders Bogor, which was once a municipality. Depok's population also grew rapidly after
joining several sub-districts from Bogor. Therefore, the authors are interested to review the research thathas been done Sandra Dewi (1997) and Yohannes Wahyu (2010). While Dewi focuses only on Betawi
language in Depok, Wahyu (2010) examines the languages that are used in Depok along with the joiningof several areas of Bogor. In addition, Dewi's research was conducted in 1997 when Depok was anadministrative city (kotif). Meanwhile, 13 years later Depok has experienced an expansion of territoryand seen its status change into a municipality. Dewi’s research shows that there is only one language in
Depok, Betawi Ora. Wahyu (2010) meanwhile, concludes that in Depok there are two dialects that havea significantly high difference. Different dialects in Depok can be said to be different languages because
the level of difference reaches almost 70% (minimum limit to be expressed as a language
difference according to Lauder (2007)). The linguistic thing that is interesting to research in Depok Cityis the change of linguistic situation that followed Depok city’s ongoing urbanization. .

2

Comparison of Research by Dewi (1997) and Wahyu (2010)

Presently, Depok has changed from being an administrative city (kotif) to a municipality. The region
also experienced an expansion and increase in the number of sub-districts. At the time of research
conducted by Dewi (1997), Depok consisted of only three districts, namely Beji Sub-district, Pancoran
Mas Sub-district, and District Sukmajaya.
Dewi Observation Area (1997)

Wahyu Observation Area (2010)

1.1 Areas of Observation
Two years after the research was completed (1999) , the number of sub-districts in Depok
increased by three. These were Cimanggis Sub-District, Sawangan Sub-district and Limo Sub-district. It
also added five fractional villages from Bojong Gede Sub-district, Bogor. Today, Depok already has 11
districts resulting from the division of working area based on the decision of the Depok local
government in 2007.

14

Dewi’s 34 Observation Points (1997)

Wahyu’s 11 Observation Points (2010)

1.2 Points of Observation
The isoglos file that has been created shows a very thick bundle at point 8, the point ofobservation Tapos district. At other points, there are very few isoglos bundles. From the results ofmaking isoglos bundles can be concluded that there is a fairly high difference between Tapos and otherobservation points in Depok. Bundles of isogloss lines that are not so thick in other points of observation
illustrate that there is little difference there in terms of vocabulary.
Dewi isoglosse files (1997)

Wahyu isogloss file (2010)

1.3 Isogloss Files
Dewi (1997) says that the result of isogloss compilation (isogloss file) and the calculation of
dialectometry can lead to the conclusion that the language in Depok is homogeneous. It is a Betawi
subdialect suburb. This is unlike the results in Wahyu (2010) who says that in Depok there is only one
language with two dialects Betawi Ora and Sundanese. Sundanese in Depok, particularly in Tapos( TP 8), is already mixed with Betawi because of the abundance of indigenous Betawi-speaking people
who have come from other sub-districts. However, based on dialectometric calculations, the difference15

between the Sukmajaya point with Tapos ( TP 8) is 67, 53%. That number is just short of the 70%
which would make the varieties in Sukmajaya and Tapos different languages . In Tapos subdistrict,there are only two neighborhoods where Sundanese is spoken, namely Leuwinanggung and Cimpaeun
Urban Village.
Wahyu (2010) says that there are three languages in Depok, namely Sundanese in theeast; Betawi Ora in the west, and the Betawi dialect dialect not found in 'ora' vocabulary in the south,
north and center. Meanwhile, Dewi (1997) states there is one language, the Outer Betawi dialect (Betawi
Pinggiran) in almost all areas. Wahyu also says that from the eleven observation points observed , onlyin the Tapos (TP 8) points is Sundanese used, while Betawi is in use in an area spread across ten points,
namely Beji ( TP 1 1), Pancoran Mas ( TP 2), Cilodong ( TP 3), Sukmajaya ( TP 4), Limo ( TP 5),
Sawangan ( TP 6), Cipayung, (TP 7), Cimanggis ( TP 9), Cinere ( TP 10), and Bojongsari ( TP 11).
This means there is a difference between the results of Dewi (1997) and Wahyu (2010).
Dewi's research shows that there is one language in Depok, Betawi Ora. After thirteen years, Wahyu
finds that there are two dialects that have quite a high degree of difference. Variation at the level of
dialect in Depok can be considered a difference of language. However, the reality on the groundshows that Sundanese in Depok now uses lexical items from Betawi so that the difference
between the two is that of dialect and does not reach the difference of language.

3

Changes of Language Variation and Distribution in Depok City

Dewi (1997) research result shows there is only one language used in Depok, the Betawi language’s
peripheral dialect. At that time, Depok was still an administrative city. Muhadjir (1984: 5) said in broad
outline the dialect of Jakarta is divided into two subdialects called inner Betawi and outer Betawi. Outer
Betawi is found in the outskirts of Jakarta, and are often called "Betawi Ora" or "Malay Ora". The nameBetawi Ora comes from the characteristic the use of the Javanese word ‘ora’' not. This illustrates that in
the subdialects of the outer Betawi, we find words derived from the Javanese language and which are notused in subdialect Inner Betawi. In addition, there are phonological differences that distinguish the two
dialects. For example in the Betawi Dalam dialect most of the final vowels, which in Indonesian are
pronounced a, are pronounced [ ε ], whereas in the Betawi Pinggiran dialect they are pronounced with[ ah ] as follows.
Indonesian
Saya
Apa
Maηga

Inside the City Sub-dialect

sayε
apε

maηgε


Border Sub-dialect
sayah
apah
maηgahIn addition, the consonants b, d, g, and h rarely appear at the end position in the Betawi Dalam
subdialect, whereas in the fourth suburb the consonant may appear in that position (Muhadjir, 1972).
In Depok, Betawi Ora language is used. Although the word ora as a marker of Betawi Ora was
not found in the whole area of Depok, where consonants b, d, g, and h as a marker of the Pinggirandialect can appear in the final positions are found, for example lalab 'salad', tu η ked 'sticks ' , gludug 'lightning '. The word 'no' in Betawi in Depok is realized with the words kaga? , Ə η ga? , and ora.
The study of Wahyu (2010 ) gives almost the same picture, that the Betawi language used by thepeople of Depok is the Betawi Pinggiran dialect. However, it is found in only one observation point(observation point 8 (Tapos District)) that tends to use Sundanese. Geographically, the village is locatedin the border area between Depok City and Bogor City. Apparently, the change of Depok’s status from
sub-district to administrative city also changed the boundaries of language and dialect areas.
3.1

Findings of Non-Betawi Vocabulary in Depok

Castles says the composition of the Betawi population since the 17th century has been comprised ofdiverse ethnic groups that have come together as a result of migration from within and from outside
Indonesia (Muhadjir, 1984: 1). Residents of Jakarta City and the suburbs, according to Castles cited by16

Muhadjir, include among others consist of Europeans, Chinese, Arabs, Javanese, Sundanese, South
Sulawesi, Sumbawa, and Ambon (Muhadjir, 1984: 5). The varied composition of the origin of residents
of Jakarta and the suburbs, also affect the socio-cultural population, and the language used. Hans Kahler
said the Malay used there is a Malay dialect with elements of Balinese, Javanese, Sundanese, Chinese,
Arabic, Portuguese, Dutch, and English (Muhadjir, 1984: 5). The findings of language vocabulary in
Depok are presumably derived from the vocabulary of Java, Sundanese, and some Balinese and Dutch.
3.1.1 Javanese vocabulary
Depok City including West Java Province is directly adjacent to DKI Jakarta Province in the north. In
terms of geography, it is estimated that the Sundanese language is used in most areas of West Java
Province as the largest "contributor" to the language Betawi Pinggiran dialect used in Depok. However,in fact, the vocabulary derived from the Javanese language is more prevalent in Betawi in Depok than in
the Sundanese vocabulary.
The abundance of Javanese vocabulary as assumed by Muhadjir (1984) in Depok was known by
the time of the VOC Governor Jan Pieterszoon Coen was in power, during which the Mataram forces
attacked Batavia several times. However, these attacks failed. When the troops of Mataram led by
Sultan Agung attacked Batavia, Muaraberes, a small port on the banks of the Ciliwung River (not far
from Depok) was used as a concentration center of Mataram troops. It is along this Ciliwung River
Sultan Agung came to Batavia. Consequently, it is believed that Depok is populated by the remnants of
the Mataram troops who spoke Javanese. Examples of Javanese vocabulary in Depok Betawi is asfollows.
VOCABULARY
Bocah
lanaη
RowahanjƏrijiGandulWadon
Gludug

TRANSLATIONS‘child’‘boy’‘kenduri’‘finger’‘papaya’‘woman’‘lightning’

3.1.2 Sundanese Vocabulary
Although not as much as the vocabulary of the Javanese language, Sundanese vocabulary can also befound in Betawi in Depok. Historically, Depok was once ruled by the Sunda Kingdom. This can beproven from the archeological remains of the Sunda Kingdom in Depok. The names of the villages in
Depok still use Sundanese names, such as Parung Bingung, Parung Balimbing, Cisalak,
Cilodong. Below is an example of Betawi is Depok which is considered to be derived from Sundanese.
VOCABULARY
uwa?
paraji?
sauη
baηor
paraη
Ənεη

TRANSLATIONS‘elder brother from parents’‘baby shaman’‘loom’‘naughty’‘sickle’‘call for little girls’

The influence of vocabulary from other regional languages is found only one or two words. For
example, the word kumpi ' grand dad ' and 'great-grandson', which is recognized as Betawi language(Malay language Jakarta) allegedly comes from the Balinese language. (Muhadjir, et al., 1979: 1)

17

4

Conclusion

Based on the discussion that has been done, it can be concluded that the research results of Dewi (1997)
showed that there is only one language in Depok, the Betawi Ora. Thirteen years since then, it is shownthat there are two dialects that have a high enough differences in Depok. Based on the dialectometriccalculation, the dialect differences in Depok almost can be said as two different languages, although has
not yet reached 70% of differences. Some changes of research result of Sandra Dewi and research of
Wahyu can be seen as follows.
Some Differences in the Research Results of Dewi and Wahyu
1.

Dewi (1997)
The research area consiststs of three
districts: Beji, Pancoran Mas, andSukmajaya

2.

The result is one language, the Betawi
language in the outskirts of almost all
regions3.

The use of the word 'ora' in the westernpart of Pancoran Mas and Beji, andsouthwest of Sukmajaya

4.

Homogeneous
language,
Pinggiran dialect.

Betawi18

Wahyu (2010)
The research area consiststs of eleven
districts: Beji, Pancoran Mas, Cilodong,Sukmajaya, Limo, Sawangan, Cipayung,Tapos, Cimanggis, Cinere, and Bojongsari
The result is two languages, Betawi and
Sundanese. However, the difference
between the two is less than that oflanguage.
No use of the word 'ora' in the threeresearch districts Sandra Dewi.
The word 'ora' is only found in thewesternmost part of present-day Depok,
the Bojongsari subdistrict (11)Heterogeneous situation with Betawi and
Sundanese languages. However, throughintense language contact and borrowing,
the difference between them is at the levelof dialectReferences
Ayatrohaedi. 1979. Pedoman Penelitian Dialektologi. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
. 1997. Kamus Khusus Penelitian Kekerabatan dan Pemeta Bahasa-Bahasa Daerah di Indonesia.
Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
. 2002. Pedoman Penelitian Dialektologi. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Balai Penelitaian Bahasa Singaraja. 1975. Kamus Indonesia-Bali. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan
Bahasa.
Bloomfield, L. 1992. Language: Bahasa. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.Chaer, Abdul. 1976. Kamus Dialek
Jakarta. Jakarta: Ende-Flores: Nusa Indah.
Chambers, J.K. dan Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology Second Edition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Dewi, Sandra. 1997. “Bahasa Betawi di Kotif Depok Kabupaten Bogor”. Skripsi Fakultas Sastra Universitas
Indonesia.
Francis, W.N. 1983. Dialectology: An Introduction. United States: Longman Group Limited.
Grijns, C.D.. 1991. Kajian Bahasa Melayu Betawi. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Holmes, J. 2003. Introduction to sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Ikranegara, Kay. 1988. Tata Bahasa Melayu Betawi. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Irsyam, Tri Wahyuning M. 2017. Sejarah Depok 1950—1990. Jakarta: Yayasan Pusaka Obor Indonesia.
Kridalaksana, Harimukti. 2008. Kamus Linguistik (edisi keempat). Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Lauder, Multamia MT. 1979. “Bahasa di Daerah Bekasi: Sebuah Kajian Lokabasa”. Skripsi. Jakarta: Fakultas
Sastra Universitas Indonesia.
. 1993. Pemetaan dan Distribusi Bahasa-bahasa di Tangerang. Jakarta: Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
. 2002. “Reevaluasi Konsep Pemilah Bahasa dan Dialek untuk Bahasa Nusantara.” Jurnal
Makara Sosial Humaniora Vol 6. No. 1 Juni. Depok: Universitas Indonesia.
. 2007. Sekilas Mengenai Pemetaan Bahasa. Jakarta: Media Eka Sarana.
Malingkas, Yulianti. 1996. “Situasi Kebahasaan di Kelurahan Pancoran Mas, Depok.” Skripsi Fakultas Sastra
Universitas Indonesia.
Muhadjir. 1984. Morfologi Dialek Jakarta. Jakarta: Jambatan.
. 2001. Bahasa Betawi: Sejarah dan Perkembangannya. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Muhadjir, dkk. 1979. Fungsi dan Kedudukan Dialek Jakarta. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan
Bahasa.
. 1986. Peta Seni Budaya Betawi. Jakarta: Dinas Kebudayaan DKI Jakarta.
Sugono, Dendy. 2008. Pusat Bahasa. Bahasa dan Peta Bahasa di Indonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
Wahyu, Yohanes. 2010. “Variasi dan Distribusi Bahasa Betawi di Kota Depok.” Skripsi Fakultas Ilmu
Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia.

19Language Contact and Language Change in the History of Betawi
Ora Dialect
Mesiyarti Munir
Department of Linguistics, University of Indonesia

Abstract
This research analyzes Betawi Ora dialect in Jabodetabek in term of language contact and language
history. This aim of this research is to view language contact and language change since the reasearch of
Grinjs and today situation and how the history has made it to be. The mapping of Betawi Ora dialect tellsthat the big migration from the city to the urban of Jakarta made this dialect become shifting and near to
extinct. Compared to the map of Grinjins
research in 1970, the dialect Ora speakers were experienced a shifting in the location of the speakers.
Native speakers who still occupy the Urban of Jakarta such as Kampung Rambutan, Jagakarasa, andJatinegara have moved to outside Jakarta such as Bogor and Bekasi. The result of this research shows that
Betawi Ora dialect area is shifted to the East and Southeast of the Jabodetabek. The language contact with
the Jakarta immigrants from various languages in Jakarta become the reason why this dialect. Some of thetypical vocabulary that this dialect possesses does not survive the next generation of dialects. Based on
the using of dialect, the speakers of Betawi Ora there are three speakers which are the speakers of dialectthat is still used Betawi Ora definitively, the speakers who still use the typical dialect vocabularies of
Betawi Ora, and the speakers who are no longer using the typical dialect vocabularies. The dialect
mapping and dialect using analysis show that the dialect Betawi Ora in Jabodetabek is not extinct but
shifted due to factors outside of language
Keywords: Betawi Ora, Dialect, language mapping, language contact, language using, dialectology,
Jabodetabek,

I. Introduction
1.1 The Background of the study
The Betawi Ora dialect comes from ethnic Javanese descent who settled in the Jakarta area after
failing in war against the VOC soldiers (Muhadjir, 2000, p. 71). Soerjapranata's 1927 study in Tawangsih(1990, p.32) found that villagers Sudimara in Ciledug Tangerang uses the language Betawi Ora for using
the word ora (derived from Javanese), while the Betawi people using the Malay language is the word noand êngga. According to Muhadjir (2000, p. 72), the Betawi dialect Tengahan and Betawi Pinggiran or theso-called with Betawi Ora having differences based on phonological features and vocabulary. The final
vowel e in particular which in Indonesian is pronounced as a, in a suburban dialect pronounced with a 'or
ah. So (s)ayè pronounced saya means me '. Based on use of vocabulary, subdialek Betawi Tengahan notfound words derived from the Java language, while subdialek Betawi Pinggiran many found vocabulary
derived from the Java language words like bocah, lanang, kulon, and jeleh not found in the Betawi dialect
dialect.
Grijins research, 1991 found that the use of Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary is still commonly foundin Jakarta City, such as Tanah Abang, Jatinegara, Jagakarsa, Grogol, Petamburan, Kampung Rambutan,
and several other areas in Jakarta. The Betawi Ora dialect is used in everyday conversation and in art

20

performances such as Lenong, Wayang Kulit, and Mask Melayu. The art of Wayang Kulit was found inother arts. Wayang Kulit is displayed in Betawi Tengahan and Betawi Ora.

Figure 1
The Map of Betawi Ora Dialects Speakers Based on Grijins Research
Currently, the speakers of Betawi Ora dialect are concentrated in some areas that still have cultural
figure of Betawi. According to some Betawi figures, speakers of the Betawi Ora dialect are in the vicinityof the area Depok distric, Tangerang Selatan subdistrics, Municipality of Tangerang, Kota Bekasi, Bekasi
Regency, and a small part in Bogor Regency. Betawi dialect Ora on this area is still running because it isstill supported by Betawi Ora art activities though very rarely done. Most speakers of the Betawi Ora dialect
inhabits the periphery close to the City of Jakarta. However, the consequences the development ofsettlements with many centers average shopping and residential complex comes from the immigrants, thespeakers of dialect Betawi Ora is getting shifted away from the city area Jakarta. This happens in almost at
most in area of South Tangerang City, Tangerang City, and Bekasi city. In general, the location of Betawi
dialect speakers Ora is in the occupied suburb area of Jakarta as a large area of Jabodetabek (Jakarta, Bogor,
Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi).
Betawi Ora dialect research in Jabodetabek area has never been done specifically and thoroughly
to date. Dialectological research ever done only is sporadic and has not provided a comprehensive overview
of the location of dialect speakers Betawi Ora at the moment. Thus, then the mapping again the Betawi Ora
dialect needs to be done as part of the dialect geography research. Language mapping this is very importantbecause the resulting map of this research can contribute to that real in education as material considerations
for designing local content curricula in school. In addition, it can be used as a tool for language development
and language preservation.

21

Efforts to preserve local languages can be done with language mapping so that location can be
known and the condition of the dialect speakers. In addition, with language mapping can be obtained in
documentation writing as an attempt to keep the language from being destroyed although it is no longer
used by generation's successor. According to Tawangsih (1990, p.3), language mapping is necessary in thearea multilingual because the language contact is not avoided. Thus, Jabodetabek area is an area withmultilingual conditions very complex is necessary mapping a thorough language using the study
dialectology. This language preservation effort appears as a result of worries about the extinction of many
languages occurs in regional languages in Indonesia. This matter LIPI disclosed that based on SIL data
(Lauder, 2004) there are 169 languages in Indonesia that are threatened extinct because it only has 500
speakers.
1. 2. The research problem
Betawi Ora dialect is currently on the verge of extinction compared to the research of Grinjs in . In
this regard, the researcher will trace the existence of the Betawi Ora dialect is integrated in Jabodetabek
area. Based on the background, the extinction of the Betawi dialect Ora has a poor language transmission
process because the younger generation is reluctant to use it because considered not cool, plebeian, anduneducated such as the results of research Rahayu (1988) in the area Ciledug Tangerang, Tawangsih (1990)
in the Tangerang area, and Revelation (2011) research only found the vocabulary "ora" is only in thewesternmost part of Depok ie Bojongsari subdistrict. In addition, developments population and urban
planning led these dialect speakers increasingly marginalized from the city of Jakarta. This research also
will show map of usage area the current Betawi Ora dialect in today usage compared to the research of
Grijins in 1991. Some areas that use the Betawi Ora dialect in the Girijins research have not been foundanymore because their generation of speakers is gone and moved. This happens in some region of Betawi
Ora dialect speakers in Tangerang as the Betawi Ora dialect speakers expressed almost extinct.

2. Research methods
2.1 Data Source
The scope of this research is 50 sub-districts spread in the DKI Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang,
and Bekasi (Jabodetabek) are still suspected has Betawi Ora dialect speakers. Because lack of information
about the location of Betawi dialect speakers Ora, then the determination of observation points is based onliterature study, information Betawi figures and residents local, and direct tracking in the field. Based onliterature study found some research which is related to the Betawi Ora dialect, among others is Tawangsih(1990) research in Tangerang, Pratiwi's (1998) research in Cipayung District, and research Yohannes (2012)
in Depok Municipality. Betawi Ora dialect speaker based on literature study found in 12 sub districts. Moredetails can be seen in the following figure.

22

Figure 2
The Map of Betawi Ora Dialect Speakers Based on the Library Studies
The next step is direct tracking in the field. At this stage the information obtained that speakers of
the Betawi Ora dialect spread in 40 districts in Jakarta area. The following map the location of Betawi Ora
dialect speakers based on information from Betawi public figures and local residents.

Figure 3
The Map of Betawi Ora Dialect Based on the Information from Betawi
People and Locals
Based on literature study, information about Betawi public figures and local people, as well as
direct tracking in the field, it can be determined that the observation point in this study amounted to 40
observation points. After the research was done, the observation point increased to 50 observation points
from. The addition of 10 observation points are located in Depok, Bogor, and Bekasi are Bojong Sari,

23

Parung, Bojong Gede, Cilodong, Tapos, Mustika Jaya, Rawalumbu, South Bekasi, and Bekasi Utara. Here's
a picture of the observation point map.

Figure 4
The Observation Point of the Research
The informants of this research are Betawi Ora dialect speakers in Jabodetabek area obtained basedon the result of research, references of Ora Betawi culture experts, local people, and tracking. In this study
selected informants aged 40-60 years with the consideration that the age of the informant still mastered the
Betawi Ora dialect. In addition, the informants are speakers and native Betawi Ora residents of each subdistrict with maximum high school education level so that the language used is still pure and that has a goodmemory and speech. Informants in this study are two informants for the point of observation, so that the
number of informants as many as 100 speakers Betawi Ora dialect.
The form of questionnaire used to find the Betawi Ora dialect in this study is 200 basic vocabularyof Swadesh and basic cultural habitat sourced from kinship research standards and language mapping from
the Ministry of National Education (2011). The questionnaire used in this study amounted to 375
vocabularies consisting of 200 Swadesh vocabularies and 175 basic cultural vocabularies of 52 vocabulary
body parts, 25 vocabulary kinship systems and 98 motion and work vocabularies (attached) and 10 simple
sentence questions (attached) to prove whether Betawi Ora dialect vocabularies is still used in everyday life.
The vocabulary is considered a relatively more difficult vocabulary to change
3. Literature Review
In general, Chambers and Trudgill (1980, p.4) observed that dialect is a collection of variations
languages separated by existing geographic factors because the language touch, but speakers can still
mutually intelligible. From the second the statement, it can be concluded that dialect is a variation ofinterconnected languages and separated by geographical factors but still mutually exclusive understand.

24

The concept of mutual understanding (mutual intelligibility) has the basic principle that the spatial distanceis proportional to the level of understanding. That is to say, a region of isolates has reciprocal understanding
according to distance proximity to the deployment center. Closer with the center of the spread, the higher
the level mutual understanding; the farther away from the center spread, the lower the level of understandingof lead behind it.
Muhadjir (2000, p. 72) states that dialect Betawi Tengahan and Betawi Ora have characteristics
typical of a different kind of speech. First, Middle dialect with the final vowel feature e, whereas Betawi
Ora vowel e is pronounced with a 'and ah. Become S) ayê pronounced as saya '; what ape pronounced.
Second, the consonant h which is contained in the end on the Betawi Ora dialect is spoken the same as thelanguage Indonesia, like blood, hard, split, and so forth. Whereas in the dialahan dialect pronounced as darê,susê, and belê. The third prominent speech feature is a voiced consonant utterance: b, d, and g. Consonant
contained in words like bedug, urug, maulud spoken in the language Indonesia, which in Betawi Ora dialectis spoken in a voiced consonant. The fourth characteristic is the field prominent vocabulary like ora 'not' in
the language Betawi Pinggiran. Other common vocabulary used in the Betawi Ora dialect comes from thevocabulary Javanese, such as bocah, lanang, kulon not found in Betawi dialect. This tracking research uses
features typical of Betawi Ora dialect according to Muhadjir (2000).
Language variations by Chambers and Trudgill in his book The Language Variation and Change(2000, p. 9) is a study of observing languages the use of language in the social sphere and grouping
languages according to distribution social. According to Chaer (2004, p.62) language variations caused by
the existence of social interaction activities done by a very society or group diverse and because of its
speakers inhomogeneous. In case of variation of this language there are two view. First, the variation isseen as a result the social diversity of the speakers of that language and the diversity of language functions.
So variations of that language occurs as a result of social diversity and diversity of language functions.
Second, the variations of that language is there to fulfil its function as a tool interaction in various
community activities variety. Weinreich (1979, p.5) explains that touch language is considered by some
Anthropologists as one of the aspects of cultural contact and interference language intervention in terms ofcultural dissemination and acculturation. Language contact occurs not solely caused by a touch of language
between the two region I village, but also determined by the presence the history of social relations between
the population of society including economic, political and demographic factors. It occurs due tocommunity interaction in a certain village with the adjacent village with him. Sometimes interactions that
occur between the boundary society is an interaction which affect each other and become an interaction thepositive (neighbouring territory) or even is a mutually incomprehensible interaction others and cannot
influence each other
The dialectological study was conducted by Tawangsih on year 1979 entitled "Language in Bekasi
Region a Lokabasa ". According to this study, there are the Javanese language that is in the middle of thevillage using the Malay language of Jakarta. The village Javanese language is allegedly there are speakers
of Betawi dialect Ora. Other dialectological research is also done by Tawangsih in 1990 in the Tangerangarea entitled 'Mapping and Distribution of Languages at Tangerang. In this study found that area-use Malay
adjacent to Special Capital Region of Jakarta, regional-use language Sunda is directly adjacent to Bogor
Regency; and area-use Javanese language is directly adjacent with North Serang District. In addition, toofound some villages that use dialect Betawi Ora is only used by the younger generation. Betawi Ora dialect
research conducted by Rahayu in 1988 entitled "Betawi Ora Dialect Mapping in Ciledug District ". This
research aims to charting the Betawi Ora dialect in Ciledug Subdistrict, Tangerang. The results show thatthe vocabulary is found in many Ciledug areas that come from Javanese or Javanese vocabulary, Sundanese,and Balinese. The Betawi Ora dialect in this region is rare used by the younger generation because ofembarrassment an inferiority.

25

4. Research Discussion
4. 1 the History of Betawi Ora Dialect
The Raid of Mataram (1628-1629) and Jan Pieterszoon's Policy Coen up to the time Independence
Cultural repertoire search and language in Bekasi area Culture and Malay Language Betawi Dialek Bekasi
is an exploration effort which is quite large. Excavation, can be drawn from the time the great kingdoms(Pajajaran, Tarumanegara) with elements Hindu-Buddhist culture. Furthermore, during the VOC andoccupation The Netherlands, where the cultural process in Bekasi get influence from elements of othercultures. Bekasi original culture and language expected to experience the process cultural marginalization
is not just due to the inclusion of cultural elements of the para entrants, but also internal factors, namely thedesire of the community to develop and preserve its own culture is lacking got great attention.
During the Dutch East Indies, J.P. policy events The Coen forming a territory special form of
Weltevreden level very Praja City area influence the development of culture and language in Jakarta andsurrounding (including in Bekasi). However, the impact of formation Weltevreden by forming a zone tomaintain security, a zone was created buffer especially in the east and west of Batavia (especially the region
Bekasi and Tangerang), namely the area inland known as Ommelanden2 designation2 Ommelanden is thename of the hinterland and the area around Batavia, which owns its own history. For example when the
Netherlands first occupied Batavia, the inhabitants were forced to leave the countryside enrich the treasuresof culture and language in the Bekasi area has its own uniqueness compared with culture and language in
Batavia (Jakarta tempo first) and separated from the region Batavia (Cribb, 1991, 31).
In the Ommelanden area in addition to community dominated natives also live in the communityof the Sundanese and Javanese tribes. The Sundanese are predominant population at around the hills of
Priangan, while the Javanese dominate along the coast in the direction Banten and Cirebon. Besides that,
there are Chinese settlements mutually dispersed and always are in the assimilation process with local
people. Mostly Their profession is the landlord and traders, so it's reasonable if then the economy iscontrolled by ethnic Chinese, and some Arabs.
Population migration and value culture and language in the region Bekasi surrounding, also markwith the appearance of Events Mataram I and II raids to Batavia (1628-1629) who gave contribution todevelopment language and culture in Bekasi. Evidence history is shown in existence Historical Site "Saung
Rangon in around Batavia, among them to Bekasi area and Tangerang with the intention of creating a zone
a buffer that is not inhabited for the sake of the security of the Dutch East Indies government at the time
J.P Coen (The Liang Gie, 1992). The presence of these other ethnicities shows mobility high population.
Change is seen from the amount residents of Bekasi between 1927 until 1940. In 1927, the population ofBekasi is 162,000 people, consisting of 30 the population of Europe, 7500 residents Foreign Orient, and154,470 inhabitants' indigenous people ("Bekasi", ENI, 1927: 237-238). Meanwhile, on in 1940 the numberof residents in this area reaches 200,000 people, based on submitted report data accept position (Memoir
van Overgave) Resident Batavia L.G.C.A. van der Hoek (Indonesia, 1980: 268).
When viewed from some data, it turns out cultural diversity it is more prevalent in the region Bekasi,(especially the cultural element Betawi Pinggiran or Betawi Ora). However, in its development precisely inline with growth development and migration of the population Bekasi City shifted to the area Bekasi
Regency as well as elements the culture it embraces, then a therein lies the problem so cultural or bias
occurs cultural identity of the people of Bekasi. In addition, the allocation Betawi cultural area of Jakarta(City) with a cultural area Bekasi (Betawi Ora) so there is sort of cultural arrogance at Jakarta area that theCenter Betawi culture is DKI Jakarta are in the assimilation process with local people. Mostly Theirprofession is the landlord and traders, so it's reasonable if then the economy is controlled by ethnic Chinese,and some Arabs.
4. 2 Lexical Variations
Based on the etyma classification, look more lexeme that comes more than one etyma rather thanlexeme that comes from more than one etyma. This matter indicates that lexical variation in Jabodetabek is26

not shows a high variation. By percentage lexical variation in Swadesh vocabulary, variation sequence thelargest to the smallest is one etyma (71 percent), two etyma (18 percent), three etyma (7percent), four etyma(2 percent) and last order occupied five etyma and six etyma both equal
1 percent. More details, can be seen in diagram as follows
1% 2%

1%
Satu Etima

7%

Dua Etima

18%

Tiga Etima
Empat Etima
71%

Lima Etima
Enam Etima

Diagram 1
The Percentage of Lexical Variation in Swadesh Vocabularies

The percentage of lexical variation in the mean field of the kinship system, the order of the mostlarge to the smallest variations is one etyma (56 percent), two etyma (32 percent), three etyma (8 percent),and six etima (4 percent). More details, can be seen in the diagram as follows.

8%4%Satu Etima
Dua Etima
56%

32%

Tiga Etima
Enam Etima

Diagram 2
The Percentage of Lexical Variation In The Meaning Of Kinship System
The merger of isogloss vocabulary files Swadesh, isogloss field of body meaning field, isogloss
field of meaning of kinship system, and isoglos field of motion and work mean field shows result of isogloss
file which progressively thickened in this isogloss joint file map. Very thick isoglosic bundles are seen insome TP 17 and TP 20; TP 28 and 29, TP 29; TP 35 and 37; TP 38 and 39; TP 41 and TP 42; TP 44 andTP 48. The thick lines in the combined isogloss file indicate a high lexical variation compared to otherobservation points. This lexical variation signifies a change in the use of Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary27

used. The high lexical variation is caused by touching languages from other languages or dialects that are
geographically adjacent. The vocabulary of ora and the vocabulary of the Betawi Ora dialect has begun
to use off and is not used at the observation point on the line above. The vocabulary found is a
vocabulary derived from Betawi and Indonesian dialects such as [kaga?], [Ŋga?], [Pərəmpuan], [ana?], and[lakI?].

Figure 4
The Entire of Isogloss File of List Inquiries
4. 3 the Use of Betawi Ora Dialectic Vocabulary in Sentence
According to the percentage of Betawi dialect Ora usage in the sentence, the order of use of the
vocabulary the highest to the lowest is the vocabulary KIDUL and LOR as much as 100 percent), vocabulary
MORE as much as (72 percent), ORA vocabulary (52 percent), WADON vocabulary (30 percent),
vocabulary LANANG (24 percent), NGGAK vocabulary (24 percent), and KAGAK vocabulary (20percent) out of a total of 50 dots. This indicates that the typical vocabulary dialect is generally still used byspeakers Betawi Ora dialect. Point of observation is still a lot using a distinctive dialect vocabulary next toeast and southeast of Jabodetabek region. For further details, can be seen in the diagram as follows.

28

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

[ora]

[kaga?][ŋga?][səgən]Graph 1.
Percentage of Vocabulary Usage Tidak Betawi dialect
The use of vocabulary of TIDAK in Betawi Ora dialect there are four variations of vocabulary, ie[ora] as much as 54 percent, [kaga?] as much as 24 percent, [ŋga?] as much as 20 percent, and [səgə n] asmuch as 2 percent. Most vocabulary users [kaga?] And [ŋga?] Claim to be embarrassed to use [ora]vocabulary because it is considered plebeian and incompatible with the present. The informants
acknowledged that beforehand they still used the vocabulary [ora] when meeting with their peers. The
younger generation of Betawi Ora dialect speakers generally do not use the [ora] vocabulary because it is
not a cool language so they are embarrassed if their parents use this vocabulary in communicating.
However, the researchers found that most of the younger generation of Bekasi and Kota Bekasi still use thevocabulary [ora] because they consider Betawi Ora dialect is Bekasi language. These findings indicatethat the Betawi dialect has shifted the name, Bekasi is actually the Betawi Ora dialect. Speakers using
the vocabulary [səgə n] found in this study are speakers who recognize themselves as Betawi Tengahan instea
d of Betawi Ora, but in direct interviews some Javanese vocabulary such as [wadon] is still used. Whenviewed from the percentage of the [ora] dialect Betawi dialect Ora by 54 percent it can be concluded that
this vocabulary is still used by the speaker. Here is a graph of the percentage of vocabulary use typical of
Betawi Ora dialect.
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

[kiduI][lɔr][wadɔn][Ianaŋ][bocah]Graph 2.
Percentage of Typical Vocabularies Usage of Betawi Ora Dialect

29

Conclusion
Based on the results of the mapping that has been done with attention to the discussion of isogloss
file and the use of the current dialect of Betawi Ora, some things that can be concluded are as follows.
Compared to the Grijins research map on the use of the Betawi Ora dialect some of the areas currently using
Dialect Betawi Ora is not found anymore, such as Kampung Rambutan, Jagakarsa, Pasar Rebo, and someareas urban Jakarta. Betawi Ora no longer same Based on the analysis of lexical variation, it appears that
lexical variation in Betawi Ora dialect does not show high variation. These measurements are based on the
etyma classification indicating that the group derived from one etyma group showed the highest percentage.
The highest percentage of lexical variation derived from a single etyma of 63 percent indicates that the
typical Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary is still used in most of the allegedly spoken areas of Betawi Ora
dialect. Based on the results of isogloss beam analysis shows the result of isogloss file which is getting
thickened in this isogloss joint file map. Very thick isoglosses bundles are seen in some TP 17 and TP 20;
TP 28 and 29, TP 29; TP 35 and 37; TP 38 and 39; TP 41 and TP 42; TP 44 and TP 48. The thick line at
this point of observation indicates a greater variety of Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary compared to otherregions. The high lexical variation is caused by touching languages from other languages or dialects thatare geographically adjacent. The vocabulary of ora and the vocabulary of the Betawi Ora dialect has begun
to wear off and is not used at the point of observation that lies on the thick line above. Regional use of
Sundanese vocabulary which includes Based on the analysis of the use of Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary, it
is known the following things.

Figure 5
The Result of the Research

30

The speakers of the Betawi Ora dialect are divided into three categories, namely the dialect ofBetawi Ora definitively, the dialect speakers who still use the ora vocabulary and the vocabulary of the
Betawi Ora dialect, the dialect speakers who do not use the Ora vocabulary, but still use the Betawi Ora
dialect vocabulary, and speakers of Ora dialect who have not used the Ora vocabulary and the vocabularyof the Betawi Ora dialect. a. The speaking region of Betawi ora dialect definitively, the Betawi Ora dialect
speakers who still use ORA vocabulary and dialect's distinctive vocabulary. The area is Teluk Naga District(TP 1), Cengkareng Sub-district (TP 4), Cipondoh Sub-district (TP 5), Pinang Subdistrict (TP 7), East
Ciputat Subdistrict (TP 15), Sawangan Sub-district (TP 19), Bojong Gede Sub- (TP 22), Cilodong District(TP 23), Sukmajaya District (TP 27), Bantar Gebang Sub-District (TP 35), West Cikarang Sub-District (TP36), Mustika Jaya Sub-District (TP 37), Rawalumbu Sub- Bekasi Selatan Sub-district (TP 39), Cakung Subdistrict (TP 40), North Bekasi Sub-district (TP 41), East Bekasi Sub-District (TP 42), Sukatani Sub-District(TP 45), Tambelang Sub-district (TP 46), North Tambun Sub- ), Sukawangi District (TP 48), Babelan Subdistrict (TP 49), and Taruma Jaya Sub-district (TP 50). b. The area of Betawi Ora dialect speakers who still
use the distinctive dialect of Betawi Ora dialect. The speakers of the Betawi Ora dialect of this category
still use a distinctive dialect vocabulary but have not used the word ora. These areas are Kosambi Subdistrict (TP 2), Kalideres Sub-district (TP 3), Karang Tengah Sub-district (TP 6), North Serpong Subdistrict (TP 8), District of Banangan (TP 10), Ciputat Sub-district (TP 14), Pamulang Sub- TP 16), District
Bojongsari (TP 17), Parung Subdistrict (TP 18), Limo Subdistrict (TP 20), Beji Sub-district (26), Cibinong
District (24), and Kecamatan Cibitung (44). c. The areas of Betawi Ora dialect speakers who have not used
the oral vocabulary and dialect vocabulary are Kebayoran Lama (TP 11), Pancoran Mas (TP 21), Jagakarsa(TP 25), Tapos (TP 28), Cimanggis (TP) 29), Ciracas District (TP 30), Cipayung District (31), Jati
Sampurna Subdistrict (32), Pondok Gede Subdistrict (33), and Jati Asih Sub-District (34).
The results of the isogloss file analysis and the analysis of the use of the Betawi Ora dialect
vocabulary indicate the existence of parallels, i.e. the thick lines in the isogloss file show the use of oral
vocabulary and the dialect vocabulary which is faded and not used anymore because of the influence ofvariations of vocabulary from dialect or other languages. The results of this study indicate that the Betawi
Ora dialect is not extinct, but has shifted the East and Southeast region due to the development of existing
infrastructure in the city of Jakarta, changes in urban spatial, the number of industrial areas and regions. In
addition, the culture of Bedol Desa that existed in the speakers of Betawi Ora dialect also helped them move
massively leaving the suburbs of Jakarta. Based on the map of the use of Betawi Ora dialect vocabulary, it
is seen that the current dialect of Betawi Ora dialect increasingly heading to the east and southeast of
Jabodetabek area. The findings of this study prove that the hypothesis of this study in accordance with thereality in the field. The Betawi Ora dialect is considered plebeian by its speaker and embarrassed to use it
in daily conversation.
References
Aitchison, Jean. (2004). Language Change: Progress or Decay. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Ayatrohaedi. (2002). Guidelines for Dialectological Research. Jakarta: Language Center of the Ministry of National
Education. Education and culture.
. (1983). an Introduction to Dialectology. Jakarta. Department Development and Language
Development Center
Chambers, J. K., Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds). (2003). the Handbook of Language Variation andChange. Blackwell Publishing.
Chambers, J.K. and Peter Trudgill. (1980). Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, Lyle, and Mauricio J. Mixco. (2007). A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Chudori, Mudjahid. (2011). Java Grammar Banten. Pustaka Sarana Cipta
Crystall, David. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

31

Dalby, Andrew (2003). Language in Danger, the Loss of Linguistics Diversity and The Threat to Our Future.
Columbia University. New York. (2004). Dictionary of Languages. New York. Columbia University Press.
Dewi, Sandra. (1997). Betawi Language Mapping in Kotif, Depok. Essay. Faculty of Literature. Depok: University ofIndonesia.
Faizah. (1987). Dialect Jakarta in Kebon Jeruk. Depok. Essay. Faculty of Literature. Depok: University of Indonesia.
Grijns.c.d (1991). Study of Malay-Betawi Language. Jakarta. Graffiti
Harrison, David. (2007). When Language Die The Extinction of The Worlds Language and The Erosion of Human
Knowledge. Oxford University Press
Institute of Bases & Literature Sundanese. (1975). General dictionary of Basa Sunda. Bandung. Tarate Publisher
Bandung.
Lauder, Multamia R.M.T. (1993). Mapping and Distribution of Languages in Tangerang. Jakarta: P3B.
Lauder, Multamia R.M.T. 2004. "Optimizing Indonesian Based Corpus Linguistics". Paper of Indonesian Language
and Literature Scientific Meeting XXVI, Muhammadiyah University, Poerwokerto 4-5 October 2004.
. (2007). Overview of Language Mapping. Jakarta. Akbar Media Aksara.
Lewis, M.P (ed). (2009). Etnologue: Language of The World, 16th edn. Dallas, Text, SIL International
Ikranegara, Kay. (1998). the Grammar of Betawi Malay. Balai Pustaka. Jakarta.
Jones, Mari. C and Sigh, Ishtla. (2005). Exploring Language Change. New York. Routledge
Kawi, Djantera. (1991). Banjar Dialects and Sub dialect. Dissertation. Faculty of Letters. Depok. University ofIndonesia.
Krauss, M. (2007). Classification and Terminology for Degrees of Language Endangerment. New York. Routledge.
Kusumawardhani, Queen Arum. (2012). Liyan in Betawi Architecture Case Study at Betawi Ora House in South
Tangerang. Thesis. Department of Architecture FT UI. Depok. University of Indonesia.
Ministry of National Education. (2012). Kinship Research and Language Mapping in Indonesia.
Malmkjaer, Kirsten. (1995). the Linguistic Encylopedia. London and New York: Routledge
Moseley, Christopher (eds). (2010). Atlas of the Worlds Language in Danger. Unesco Publishing.
Mesthrie, Rajend, and Bhatt, M. Rakesh. (2012). World Englishness, the Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambride.
Cambridge University Press
Muhadjir. (2000). Betawi. History and Development. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Muhadjir and Ayatrohaedi. (1979). Function and Position of Dialect Jakarta. Language Development and Language
Development Center for Education and Culture. Jakarta.
Mukti, US. (1977). District Dialect Citeureup, Gunung Putri, Cileungsi. Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Letters.
Jakarta: IKIP Jakarta
Muhadijr, Lauder, Multamia., & Rahmat, Ruciat. (1986). "Tracking the Traces of Java in Betawi". Paper at Periodic
Scientific Meeting Research and Study Center of Nusantara Region: Javanology in Yogyakarta.
Mahsun. 1995. Diacronical Dialectology: An Introduction. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Unesco (2003). Language Vitality and Endangerment. Document Submitted to the International Expert Meeting on
Unesco Program. Safe Guarding of Endangered Language, Paris 10-12 March
2003. http:www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00120-EN.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2013).
Utomo, Sutrisno.Sastro (2007). The Complete Dictionary of Javanese Language. Kanisius Publisher
Pratiwi, Endang Hesti. (1996). Betawi Language in Cipayung DKI Jakarta: A Language Mapping and Language
Analysis. Essay. Faculty of Literature. Depok: University of Indonesia.
Rahayu, Rr. Sri Yuniasih. (1988). the Mapping of the Betawi-Ora Dialect in Ciledug District. Essay. Faculty of
Literature. Depok: University of Indonesia.
Robins, and Uhlenbeck (1991). Endangered Language. Oxford University Press.

32

The Similarities and Dissimilarities of Satun Malay Spoken in
Malaysia and Thailand: A Geo-linguistic Analysisa

Nor Hashimah Jalaluddina,
Junaini Kasdanb,
Harishon Radzia
Linguistics Program, Universiti Kebangsaan MalaysiabInstitute of the Malay World and Civilization

Abstract
Langkawi Island in the northwest of Malaysia and Satun in the southern part of Thailand sharemany interesting facts and fictions. The two neighborhoods are closely related because they
traditionally experienced similar historical, geographical, economic, linguistic and cultural
backgrounds. The most important trait is that the communities speak the same subdialect of
Malay dubbed as Satun Malay. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to examine the phonology ofLangkawi Satun Malay (LSM) and Thailand Satun Malay (TSM), particularly focusing on theirsimilarity and dissimilarity features. Data are collected in the field from various subjects, namely
young, adult, and old informants. The available data are broadly transcribed and the phonologicalfeatures are systematically deduced based on the given regular patterns. The phonologicalfeatures are then represented and mapped accordingly by employing the geo-linguistic analysis.
The phonology of LSM and TSM can be divided into two categories, namely (i) Malay
phonological features, and (ii) Thai phonological features. In the former, the phonological rules
involved are commonly found in many Malay dialects, while in the latter, the rules are strictly
associated to Thai grammar. For the purposes of GIS analysis, the representations merely focus
on Thai phonological features that were imported into TSM and LSM, namely monosyllabic word
formation, tones, aspiration and long vowel. It is apparent that the distributions of these featuresin both localities are dissimilar and not uniformed.
Keywords: similarities, dissimilarities, geo-linguistic, Satun Malay, phonology,

1Introduction
Langkawi and Satun are neighboring districts which are situated and administered by two
different nation states, namely Malaysia and Thailand respectively, but yet they share many thingsin common because they traditionally experienced similar historical, geographical, economic,
linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Geographically, the two districts are separated by Andaman
Sea, but they can easily be reached by ferry. Thus, the peoples are moveable and interconnected
quite freely. Based on historical evidences, the two regions were once subsisted as one kingdom.
However, after Anglo-Siamese treaty was officiated in 1909, they were separated andadministered by two different sovereign countries. Langkawi belongs to Malaysia, while Satun
goes under Thai administration. As mentioned, although the lands are physically divided, thecommunities are mutually assimilated as they shared the same cultural and linguistic features
which accordingly tied the peoples in harmony until today (Kamaruddin 1999). In their daily
communication, the peoples of Langkawi and Satun generally speak the same dialect of Malay
commonly dubbed as Satun Malay. It must be noted that Malay is a minority language in Thailand,
and it is spoken mostly by Moslem Thai who live in Yala, Pattani, Narathiwat, Songkla and Satun(Luangthoangkham 2008, Phaithoon 2005). In his preliminary study, Worawit (1999) generally

33

points out that Thailand Satun Malay (TSM) is quite similar to Langkawi Satun Malay (LSM). In
attempting to suffice his previous work, the current study aims to examine and describe thephonological aspects of TSM and LSM, primarily focusing on their phonological similarities anddissimilarities respectively.

2

Previous Researches on LSM and TSM
As reported in the litrature, there are a few studies has been done on LSM (Nor Hashimah et. al.
2017, Hayati et. al. 2016) and TSM (Kamaruddin 1999). As noted, it has been observed thatphonologically there are similarity and dissimilarity fatures betwen these two subdialects. In
addition, there are also some elements of Thai grammar that had been imported into the grammarof TSM and LSM through loanwords. In his preliminary study on Malay dialects spoken in
Thailand, Amon (1986) has identified nine different groups of Malay dialects, and in Satun itself
there are four subdialects, namely, Ban Khuan, Ce Bilang, Tammalang and Urok Lawoi in Pulau
Adang. In another study, Gandour (1979) looks into how tones are assigned to Thai loanwords.
Gandour claims that tone assignments are heavily dependent on word final syllables. Malay
language on the other hand is a non tonal language. However, tones can still be heard in bothSatun subdialects. Court 1975 (in Gandour 1979) reported that the high rising falling tone isassigned to syllables ending in a sonorant segment that occurs in phrase final position, and thehigh level tone is assigned elsewhere. For TSM the high falling tone is compatible with Malay
intonation. Apart from linguistics, Norizah & Nor Hisham (2010) and Hayati et.al (2016) havelook into sociolinguistic aspects of TSM. It is observed that TSM has no economic value inThailand. Thai education policy has marginalised the role of TSM and its usage is confined only tofamily members, friends and religious domain. TSM is fluently spoken by adults of 50 years old
and above, and on the contrary it has become a second language to the younger generation.
Thus far there is no linguistic study that focuses on the distribution of LSM and TSM in bothloacalities. Accordingly, this study proposes that a geo-linguistic analysis which incorporates both
linguistic and non-linguistic features is able to depict dialect distribution in a systematic, precise
and accurate map produced by GIS (Onishi 2010, Teerarojanarat and Tingsabadh 2011, NorHashimah 2015, Nor Hashimah et. al. 2016, Nor Hashimah et. al. 2017, Siti Noraini 2018,
Zaharani et. al. 2018). The non-linguistic attributes such as topography, migration, history andsocio-culture provide extra informations that can offer a better analysis about dialect distribution
in one particular area.

3

Methodology
The present study is conducted in accordance with the standard procedures established in a
research metodology. Primary and authentic data are collected by the researchers in the field by
various methods, such as observation, questionnaires, interviews and voice recordings. This
procedure is essential and appropriate as it is closely related to data analysis and elucidation of
final results (Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin et. al. 2017). The fieldworks were carried out in Langkawi
Island and Satun. In the former, there are six villages involved, namely Kuah, Padang Mat Sirat,
Kedawang, Bohor, Air Hangat and Ulu Melaka (see map 1). The informants were native speakers
of Langkawi together with Thai respondents who have been resided in Langkawi for a long time.
There are totally 120 informants, and they are divided into three groups, namely (i) young (agebetween 15-25 years), (ii) adult (age between 26-49 years), and (iii) old generation (50 years andabove). The similar procedures and criteria are implemented in Satun district which involved
three villages, that is (i) Che Bilang, (ii) Tammalang and (iii) Ban Khuan (see map 2). Che Bilang
is located in a coastal area which is separated from Langkawi by Andaman Sea. Tammalang isbordered with Kuala Perlis in the south, and Ban Khuan is situated in the interior part which
received a lot of Thai influence. As mentioned, in Satun only the adults and old informants canspeak TSM fluently.

34

The available data are broadly transcibed and their phonological features are systematicallydeduced and categorized based on the regular patterns surface in the outputs. These phonologicalinformations are subsequently imported to the GIS software. The software then analytically
produces precise and scientific maps depicting the distribution of each linguistic item under study
in both Langkawi and Satun.

Map1: Langkawi Island4.

Map 2: Satun

Discussion and Findings
Based on the regular phonological patterns, the phonology of LSM and TSM can be divided into
two categories, namely (i) Malay phonological features, and (ii) Thai phonological features. In theformer, the phonological processes or rules involved are commonly found in many Malay dialects,
while in the latter, the rules are strictly associated to Thai grammar. It is apparent that in these twocategories, both LSM and TSM display some similarities as well as dissimilarities respectively. In
the following section, the discussion is divided into two parts:i) Malay phonological featuresii) Thai phonological features

4.1

Malay Phonological Features
As mentioned above, Malay phonological features referred to phonological rules that are visibly
active in many Malay dialects. There are four regular rules that have been identified, namely (i)lateral deletion rule, (ii) plosive substitution rule, (iii) fricative formation rule, and (iv) vowel
rounding rule.

4.1.1

Lateral Deletion Rule
It is common in many Malay dialects that the lateral consonant /l/ cannot occur in word final
position, and it is resolved by segmental deletion (i.e. /bɑntɑl/ ‘pillow’ becomes [bɑntɑ]). This rule isvisibly active in both LSM and TSM. However, in the former, there is an additional rule that changes
the vowel /ɑ/ to /ɛ/, and the output surfaces as [bɑntɛ].

35

Table 1: Lateral deletion word finally
lexicon/bɑntɑl/ ‘pillow’

Lateral deletion[bɑntɑ][bɑntɛ]LSM/TSM
LSM , TSM
TSM

4.1.2 Plosive Substitution Rule
Here is another instance where sonorant consonants are not permitted in word final position.
Unlike the lateral /l/, the prohibition of nasal segments in this environment is resolved by plosive
substitution rule where the final nasal is replaced by a homogenous plosive segment (i.e. /ɑjɑm/‘chicken’ and /ikɑn/ ‘fish’ become [ɑjɑp] and [ikat] respectively). This rule is visibly active only in
TSM, particularly in Che Bilang and Ban Khuan. The rule never applies in LSM and the nasal
consonants are retained in the lexicons (i.e. [ɑjɑm] and [ikɑn]). Surprisingly, the rule also failed tooperate in Tammalang, another village in TSM. It must be mentioned that even though there arevariants, the lexicons are mutually comprehensible among the speakers in both subdialects. Other
examples are shown in table 2 below.
Table 2: Substitution of nasals by homogenous plosives
Lexicon/ɑjɑm/‘chicken’/tɑʤɑm/‘sharp’/ikɑn/‘fish’/hutɑn/‘forest’/mɑkɑn/‘eat’

Nasal to plosive[ɑjɑp][ɑjɑm][tɑʤɑp][tɑʤɑm][ikɑt][ikɑn][utɑt][utɑn][mɑkɑt][mɑkɑn]LSM/TSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM

4.1.3

Fricative Formation Rule
Third regular rule involved the derivation of fricative sounds [ɣ], [ʁ] and [ʕ] from the trill
consonant /r/, and the process is dubbed as fricative formation rule which is governed by theoccurrence of /r/ in the syllable positions. The fricatives [ɣ] and [ʁ] occur in the onset, while [ʕ]occurs in the coda. The distinction between TSM and LSM is that the former utilizes velar fricative[ɣ] and the later employs uvular fricative [ʁ]. They are similar in a situation which involved theoccurrence of pharyngeal fricative [ʕ] in the coda, and this is a salient feature of Malay dialects
spoken in northern part of West Malaysia. Relevant examples of lexicons are displayed in table 3.
lexicon/rɑmbutan/‘a kind of fruit’/kɑri/‘curry’Table 3: Transformation of trill to fricatives/r/ to [ɣ] and [ʁ]TSM/LSM[ɣɑmbot][ʁambot][kɑɣi][kaʁi]

TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM

36

4.1.4

Vowel Rounding Rule
All the rules we discussed thus far only involved consonantal segments. What follows is a rulethat modifies a vowel sound. Both subdialects undergo the same phonological rule called vowel
rounding which transforms the low vowel /ɑ/ into mid low back vowel [ɔ] word finally. Relevant
examples are exemplified in table 4 below.
Lexicon/pɑhɑ/‘thigh’/sukɑ/‘happy’/kitɑ/‘we’

Table 4: Word final /ɑ/ becomes [ɔ][ɔ] word finally[pɑhɔ][sukɔ][kitɔ]

TSM/LSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM
TSM
LSM

4.2 Thai Phonological Features
As mentioned earlier, TSM is a marginal dialect spoken by minority Muslim communities inThailand. Hence, the dialect is easily influenced by a predominantly Thai language. Inevitably,some Thai grammatical rules are imported into TSM via loanwords and subsequently disseminatedto LSM. Based on the available data, four visibly active rules have been identified, namely (i)monosyllabic word formation, (ii) tone assignment, (iii) aspiration, and (iv) long vowel. Some ofthese rules are shared features, and others mark the distinction between LSM and TSM.
4.2.1

Monosyllabic Word Formation

Generally Malay words are disyllabic and Thai words on the other hand are monosyllabic.
When Malay disyllabic words in TSM and LSM are transformed into monosyllabic words, it isbelieved that the transformation is triggered by Thai phonology. Monosyllabic word can be derived
either by syllable reduction or resyllabification.
Table 5: Monosyllabic word formation
Lexicon/ɲiur/‘coconut’/nenek/‘grandma’/dɑun/‘leaf’/ləpat/‘sweet delicacy’/ɑbɑŋ/‘brother’monosyllabic

TSM/LSM

[nɛʔ]
[toʔ]
[down], [down]

LSM, TSM
LSM, TSM
LSM, TSM[phat]

LSM, TSM

[bɑŋ]
[bɑ]

LSM, TSM
TSM

[ɲɔ],

4.2.2

TSM

Tone Assignment
Another salient feature that characterizes the distinction between Thai and Malay is that theformer is a tonal language and the latter is non-tonal. Gandour (1979) claims that there are fivedifferent tones in Thai, namely the mid falling, low falling, high falling, high raising and low rising.
These tones are phonemic in Thai. According to Court (in Gandour 1979), TSM assigns the highfalling tone / ̂ / in the presence of sonorant sounds in a word final position. The high rising tone
/ ́ / is used elsewhere. Interestingly, based on the available data, two other types of tones have been
identified, namely low rising tone / ̌ / and falling tone / ̀ /. Table 6 demonstrates some examples of
Malay lexicons in LSM and TSM that have undergone tone assignment.

37

Table 6: Tone assignment
Lexicon/ɑir/‘water’/ulɑr/
snake’/ɑjɑm/‘chicken’/mɑkɑn/‘eat’/hutɑn/‘forest’/duriɑn/‘durian’/ikɑn/‘fish’/tɑʤɑm/‘sharp’/ləmbut/‘soft’

Lexicons with tones

TSM/LSM[ɑjjɑ̂],[ɑjjɑ̌ʕ][uljɑ̌ʔ]LSM, TSM[ɑjɑ̌p]TSM[mɑkɑ̀t]TSM[utɑ̀t]TSM[dɔjɑ̌n], [dɔjɑ̀t]

LSM, TSM[ikɑ̀t]TSM[tɑʤɑ̌p]TSM[ləmuìt]LSM, TSM

LSM, TSM

4.2.3

Aspiration
As established in the literature, aspiration is not distinctive in Malay phonology. Thus,
aspirated consonants never surface in native lexicons. In Thai on the other hand, aspirated andunaspirated consonants are contrastive, and therefore aspiration is phonologically significant in thelanguage. In the contexts of LSM and TSM, aspiration only occurs in the latter, and this linguisticfeature is imported into the subdialect through Thai loanwords, as exemplified in Table 7 below. In
sum, aspiration is a salient feature that distinguishes the two subdialects of Satun Malay.
Table 7: Loanwords with aspirated consonants
Lexicon/khɑj/‘chicken’/khom/‘sharp’/lɑŋ̌khɑ/‘hut’/khǒŋ/‘objects’/phuk ʁɑ̂w/‘we’/hǔɑ khɑù/‘knee’/khɑ/‘thigh’Aspirated Consonant

TSM/LSM[khom]

TSM[lɑŋ̌khɑ]

TSM[khǒŋ]

TSM[phuk ʁɑ̂w]

TSM[hǔɑ khɑù]

TSM

[khɑ]

TSM

[khɑj]

38

TSM

4.2.4

Long Vowel
Besides aspiration, vowel length is also not contrastive in Malay phonology. Thus, thedistinction between short and long vowels never occurs in native lexicons. Once again long vowels
are imported into TSM only through Thai loanwords. Similarly to aspiration, long vowel is anotherphonological feature that differentiates TSM from LSM.
Table 8: Loanword with long vowel
LexiconLong vowel

TSM/LSM/pɑ̀ː/[pɑ̀ː]

TSM/mɑjː/[mɑjː]

TSM/luː mɑŋkut/[luː mɑŋkut]TSM/luːp/[luːp], [tuː]TSM/luːʔ nun/[luːʔ nun]

TSM/tɑː jɑ/[tɑː jɑ],

TSM

/tɔː/

[tɔː]

TSM

/wɔː/

‘son’
‘forest’‘mother’‘mangoesteen’‘ironing’‘jackfruit’‘grandma’‘a kind of vegetable’

[wɔː]

TSM

4.3 A Geo-linguistic Analysis
As shown above, there are phonological features that are shared by LSM and TSM, and at thesame time there are features that exclusively occur in a particular subdialect. This implies that thedissemination of Satun Malay phonological features is not uniformed in LSM and TSM, and the
distribution of these features will be captured and mapped by employing the GIS analysis. For the
purposes of this paper, we merely focus on the Thai phonological features that were imported in thetwo subdialects, namely monosyllabic word formation, tones, aspiration and long vowel. The
distribution of these features in LSM and TSM is depicted in map 3 and 4 respectively.
As can be seen in map 3, the feature of phonological behaviors such as monosyllabic
aspiration, tones and long vowel are confined to certain areas only that is the central part of Langkawi.
Here is the dominant residence of LSM speakers. Nor Hashimah et. al (2017) emphasizes that the
topography of Langkawi acts as a hindrance factor in determining the dissemination of these features
to Padang Mat Sirat, Bohor and Kuah. All these villages are known as the original residence of thelocals.

39

Map 3: Distribution of Thai phonological features in LSM
Likewise, the distribution of Thai phonological features in TSM is also not uniformed. As
shown in map 4, there are areas which only have one feature, while the others have more than one.
For instance, in Che Bilang and Tanyongpoo (sub-village of Che Bilang) only the monosyllabic
feature is utilized, while the other features such as tones, aspiration and long vowel are totallyneglected. In stark contrast, Chalung, Tammalang and Ban Khuan utilize more Thai features which
are imported through loanwords. However, it must be mentioned that the imported features retainedin each village are still not the same. The distinction between Chalung and Ban Khuan is that apartfrom sharing the same phonological features of tone and long vowel, the former has an additionalmonosyllabic feature as compared to the latter. Tammalang which is situated in the southern part of
Satun also has three phonological features. The salient characteristic of Tammalang is that it is the
only region in Satun that has the phonological feature of aspiration besides monosyllabic and longvowel.

40

5.

Conclusion
The dissemination of Satun Malay phonological features in Langkawi and Satun is best
understood if it is represented in a map where non-linguistic factor, such as topography can also betaken into account in explaining the distributional pattern. Non-linguistic factors such as migration,
history and socio-cultural elements in both localities also play important roles in explaining thephenomena. In sum, linguistic and non-linguistic elements are equally essential in linguistic study,
and they are incorporated under GIS analysis where the findings are more explicit, systematic andscientific.

6.

Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for granting research funds for this project(TD-2015-004 – The Sustainability of Malay Civilization in Langkawi and Satun)

References
Asmah, H. O. 1985. Susur Galur Bahasa Melayu. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Collins, J.T. 1996. Khazanah dialek Melayu. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysi, Bangi
Gandour, J.1997. Tonal Rules for English Loanwords in Thai. Studies in Tai and Mon Khmer Phonetics
and Phonology in Honour of Eugne J.A.Henderson ed. by T.L Tongkhum, V. Panupong,
P.Kullavanijaya & M.R.K. Tingsabadh. Bangkok, Chulalongkorn University Press.
Ismail, D . 1997. Glosari Dialek Kedah. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Kamaruddin, E. 1999. Perbandingan Fonologi Dialek Melayu Satun dengan Dialek
Melayu Perlis. Tesis Sarjana. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang
Luangthoangkhum. T. 2008. The Position of Non-Thai languages in Thailand. Dlm Hock Guan
Lee, Leo Suryadinata (pnyt). Language, Nation and Development in Southeast Asia. Pp. 181-191.
Singapore: LSEAS Publishing. [acessed on 12th June 2015, from http://www.google.combooks]
Hayati, L, Nor, H.J, Harishon, R , Ruslan, U . 2016. Proceeding The Tenth International MalaysianStudies Conference (MSC10): Globalization and Regionalism: Malaysian in ASEAN. Penerbit
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.

41

Nor, H.J, Maizatul, F.H, Harishon, R & Junaini, K. 2017. Penyebaran Dialek Melayu di Langkawi.
Analisis Geolinguistik. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies. 17 (4): 159 - 178.
Nor, H.J.2015. Penyebaran Dialek Patani di Perak: Analisis Geolinguistik. Jurnal Antarabangsa
Dunia Melayu Jilid 8 (2): 310-330.
Nor, H.J, Zaharani. A, Harishon. R , Norlisafina. S. 2016. Varian Kata Ganti Nama Dialek di Pesisir
Perak: Analisis Geographical Information System (GIS). GEMA Online Journal of Language
Studies Volume 16(1): 109-123.
Norizah, A & Nor, H.O. 2010. Pemeliharaan Bahasa Ibunda dalam Kalangan
Masyarakat Islam di
Satun, Thailand. [acessed on 12th Jan. 2018, from http://repository.um.edu.my/id/eprint/83097]
Onishi, T. 2010. Analyzing dialectological distributions of Japanese. Dialectologia, Special issue, I:
123-135.
Phaitoon,M.C. 2005. Perubahan autosegmen dalam dialek Patani: Fenomenatransmorfofonologisasi.
Persidangan Antarabangsa Bahasa , Sastera dan Budaya. Fakulti
Bahasa dan Komunikasi.
Universiti Putra Malaysia. 24-25 Januari.
Ruslan. U. 2011. Keistimewaan Dialek Melayu Patani. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia.
Siti. N.H . 2018. Penyebaran Leksikal dan Bunyi dalam Dialek Melayu di Perak: Analisis Geolinguistik.
PhD Tesis Program Linguistik. Bangi: UKM
Teeraroanarat, S dan Tigsabadh, K. 2011. A GIS-Based Approach For Dialect Boundary Studies. Jurnal
Dialectologia of Universitat de Barcelona 6 : 55-75
Worawit, B. (1999). Dasar Kerajaan dan Kesannya Terhadap Bahasa Melayu di Negara Thai. Tesis
PhD Thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Zaharani, A, Nor. H. J & Yusmaniza,Y . 2018. GIS Mapping of Dialect Variation in North Perak.
Dialectologia. 20 (1-20).

42

Arabic loanwords in languages around the Indian Ocean,
andwhat this tells us about the transmission of Arabic words
Youichi Nagato
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

Abstract
In this article, I analyze the Arabic loanwords that exist in the languages around the Indian
Ocean. In this analysis, I focus on the amount of the Arabic loanwords in each language, theforms these loanwords take, and the concepts they denote (or function they play). By doing so, I
clarify the routes through which Arabic words entered these languages and the periods in time
when they did so. When I use the term ‘loanword,’ I mainly refer to borrowed foreign words thatare incorporated into the language without any morphological change. This usage corresponds toEinar Haugen’s definition of loanwords — “morphemic importation without substitution.”
However, I also use the term to refer to ‘loanblends’— words that feature a mix of native andborrowed constituents (or as Haugen puts it, “morphemic substitution as well as importation”)(Haugen, 1950: 214–215).
The Indian Ocean languages I selected for my analysis include those that contain the highest
amounts of Arabic loanwords—namely, Persian, Urdu, Indonesian, and Swahili. To these, I
added Turkish and Uyghur, because these languages are deeply connected to Persian. One
reason why these six languages contain numerous Arabic loanwords is because many of the
speakers of these are Muslims.
To sample the loanwords in each language, I referred to languages surveys of the ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies(ILCAA TUFS 2000). This resource contains lists of 2,000 loanwords in Swahili, Indonesian,and Persian. I amended the lists as necessary. For the other languages (Turkish, Uyghur, andUrdu), I compiled my own loanword lists by referring to the literature.

1

Numbers of loanwords

Of the six languages of Persian, Urdu, Indonesian, Swahili, Turkish and Uyghur, Indonesian borrows
from Arabic the least — Arabic loanwords account for only 6% of the listed loanwords (125 out of
2,000). Persian had the highest percentage of Arabic loanwords, at 31% (618 / 2,000), followed by
Swahili (26% — 519 / 2,000), Urdu (23% — 441 / 1,913), Turkish (21% — 354 / 1,705), and Uyghur(18% — 331 / 1,871). Notably, Turkish contained a higher percentage of Arabic loanwords during the
Ottoman era. Of the 2,050 Ottoman-era Turkish words computed based on Katsuta 2002’s lexicon, 594(29%) have an Arabic origin. After the Turkish Republic emerged in 1923, the new government led alinguistic reform in an attempt to restore native words to the Turkish lexicon.
Why does Indonesian contain so few Arabic loanwords compared to the other language? A likely
reason is that the Indonesians who sailed the Indian Ocean were mainly traders, and these traders would
have had few opportunities to engage directly with Persian or Arabic speakers. On the other end of thescale, why do Arabic loanwords account for as much as 18% of the loanwords in Uyghur despite the factthat the Uyghur-speaking region is situated far from the Arabian Peninsula? A possible answer is thatmany of these Arabic loanwords came via Persian. The results for Swahili are notable too: theSwahili-speaking region lies adjacent to the Arabian Peninsula; yet, the language also includes
loanwords originating in Indian languages, such as gari ‘car’. The presence of such loanwords may be

43the result of contact with trade between East Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
This guideline is adapted from the template of PACLIC 18 conference. It is an MS Word template.
Users of other word processors should set their corresponding style parameters to conform to the format
given here.

Map 1: Percentage of loanwords that are from Arabic

2

Categorizing the loanwords by their features

I found that certain features of the loanwords correlated with the donor language (Arabic, Persian,
European language, or other language).
2.1. Arabic loanwords
Words borrowed from Arabic tend to denote concepts such as religion, language, nature, society,philosophy, or greeting, or to act as a conjunction. The words shown below are Arabic loanwords thatfeature in all of the six languages (the words in Arabic are shown in parenthesis. j = [dʒ], y = [j]).
Religion: Friday (jumʕa), world (dunyaː), pilgrim (ħajj), devil (ʃayṭaːn), tomb (qabr, qubuːr),
victim (qurbaːn)Language: letter (ħarf, ħuruːf), poem (ʃiʕr), answer (jawaːb), list /table (jadwal)
Philosophy: essentials, condition (ʃarṭ), cause (sabab)Society: nation, people, orphan (yatiːm), present (hadiyya), duty (waːjib, waðiːfa), right (ħaqq),
poor (faqiːr, miskiːn)Nature: nature (ṭabiːʕa), air (hawaː), season (mausim)
Conjugation: when (waqt), maybe (mumkin), finally (axiːr), for example (maθalan)
Greeting: thank (ʃukr), good day, Congratulations (mubaːrak, mabruːk)
Others: character, signal (iʃaːra), safe (amaːn, saːlim), mysterious (ʕajiːb), famous (maʃhuːr)
As the above list illustrates, many Arabic loanwords pertain to cultural concepts that existed before themodern age. The Arabic loanword for ‘letter’ (ħuruːf) occupies a particularly important place in each of
the six languages. Initially, this loanword possibly referred to the Arabic script (as seen in the Quran) in

44

particular (as opposed to the written word in general). This distinction subsequently broke down after
the six languages started being written in Arabic script. Persian, for example, shifted to Arabic writingfrom the Pahlavi script. Urdu and Uyghur speakers similarly started using Arabic letters. As for Turkish,
Swahili, and Malay (from which Indonesian is derived), these languages also used Arabic orthography,
although they later replaced it with Roman characters after European colonial rule. Whatever language
they speak, Muslims hold Arabic in high regard because they believe that the Almighty sent down his
Quran to the Prophet Mohammed in Arabic. Hence, religious (or specifically Islamic) concepts are more
likely to be expressed with an Arabic loanword than any other loanword.
I identified cases where a concept is expressed with an Arabic loanword in all six languages, but not thesame Arabic loanword. Oftentimes in such cases, the languages would not borrow a new Arabic word.
Rather, each language would deploy one of its existing Arabic loanwords — a loanword the language
had borrowed back in pre-modern times. An example is the word ‘nation.’ The Arabic word for ‘nation’is ʃaʕb. However, rather than borrowing this Arabic word, each language deployed one of its existingArabic loanwords.
Persian qoum, Urdu qoum < Arbic qawm ‘people, nation’,
Indonesian rakya < Arabic raʕya ‘flock, subject’
Turkish halk, Uyghur xalq < Arabic xalq ‘creatures, mankind’
Swahili watu wa taifa [men of nation] < Arabic ṭaːʔifa ‘denomination, sect’
The Urdu word qoum might have been borrowed from
Persian, while the Uyghur word xalq might haveoriginated from the Turkish halk. Another example is
the word ‘magazine’ (see Map 2). Until the 19th
century, the Arabic word majalla (‘codex’ or ‘book’)
was out of use, but Lebanese author Nāṣif al-Yāzijī
helped return it to active use when he introduced it as
the Arabic word for ‘magazine’ (Versteegh, 2014:
231). Thus, given that the Arabic word majalla cameback into use in 19th century, we can infer that thePersian word majalle and Indonesian word majalah
Map 2 ‘magazine’
were borrowed from Arabic no earlier than the 19th
century. Urdu, however, deployed a different Arabic
loanword for magazine—namely, risaːla, which in Arabic means ‘missive’ or ‘message.’All six languages use the Arabic word for ‘Friday’ (jumʕa) to describe this day of the week (Persian
jom’e, Turkish juma, Urdu juma, Indonesian jumat, Uyghur jümä, Swahili. ijumaa). Islam introduced
the seven-day week into these languages before the arrival of European influences. As for the other daysof the week, Indonesian uses Arabic loanwords, while the other languages use either Persian loanwords
or refer to days of the week with numerals, counting up from Friday.
2.2. Persian loanwords
Persian loanwords feature extensively in Turkish, Urdu, and Uyghur, but fewer exist in Indonesian andSwahili. Table 1 shows examples of Persian loanwords in each language.
Table 1: Persian loanwords (words in parenthesis are words other than Persian loanwords)
Meaning
Persian
TurkishUrdu
Indonesian
Swahiliʽsugarʼ
ʃekar
ʃeker
ʃakar
(gula)(sukari)‘market’
bāzār
pazar
baːzaːrpasar(soko)
ʽifʼagar
eːr < eɣer
agar(kalau)(kama)
ʽcolourʼ
rang
renk
rang
(warna)rangi
ʽspring timeʼ bahār
baharbahaːr(musim buŋa) (masika)
ʽcityʼ
ʃahr
ʃehir
ʃaher
(kota)(mji)

45

Uyghur
ʃikär
bazar
ägär
räŋ
bahar
ʃähär

The languages deploy Persian loanwords for commonplace concepts such as market, city, color, andsome foods. Also of note, some these languages use a Persian loanword for the function word ‘if.’ In theabove table, the only Indonesian example of a Persian loanword is the word for market (pasar). Three ofthe other words—gula, warna, and kota—originate from the Sanskrit gula, varɳa, and kuʈa, while
kalau is a hybrid of the Sanskrit kāla and the Arabic lau. The Indonesian word for spring time (musimbuŋa) reflects an Arabic influence—musim originates from the Arabic mausim, meaning ‘high season.’
2.3. Loanwords from European languages
In the ILCAA TUFS 2000, loanwords from a European language account for only between 2 to 5% of
the loanwords in each of the six languages. Although some European loanwords appear in basic
vocabulary, they appear much more prominently in scientific and technical concepts. The six languages
were exposed to European influences in the modern period. Hence, European loanwords typicallydenote more modern concepts. By the modern era, the metric system and the Gregorian calendar had
become popular throughout the world. Accordingly, the six languages started using many European
loanwords for measurements and calendar dates. Many of the month names originate from Latin.
Turkish, however, derives its month names from a mixture of sources. mart (March) and ağustos(August) are from the Gregorian calendar. However, other months are taken from Arabic month names,
which themselves originate in the Babylonian calendar. Uyghur is also exceptional in that it refers tomonths with numerals.
When the languages use a European loanword to express
a concept, the specific donor language often varies
between them. To take ‘bicycle’ as an example (see Map3), the Turkish word for the vehicle is bisiklet, which isborrowed from the French bicyclette. Urdu borrows fromthe English ‘cycle’ to make saːikl. Similarly, Swahili
uses the word baisikeli ‘bicycle’. In Indonesian, bicycle
is səpeda, from the French vélocipède. The Uyghur wordfor bicycle is welsepit, which originates from the RussianВелосипед. Persian, on the other hand, uses the word Map 3: Word for ‘bicycle’dočarxeh, which is a composition of two native
words—do ‘two’ and čarxeh ‘wheel’.
The following are examples of other concepts expressed with European loanwords.
Measure : meter, hectare, liter, gram, ton
Month : March, May, August
Machine : machine, radio, telephone, camera,
bicycle (vélocipède), train, car, tramcar
Modern items : bank, movie, post-card, postal
stamp, policeman, tobacco (16 C.)
Greeting : hello (on the telephone)
Others : Japan, cement, hotel, ticket, music
Map 4 gari ʽcarʼ

2.4. Indian loanwords in Swahili
gari, the Swahili word for ‘car’ (see Map 4), originates in the Urdu and Hindi word gāṛī, which itself
comes from the Sanskrit gantrī. This and other Indian loanwords in Swahili would have been introduced
as a result of contact with traders from the Indian subcontinent.

46

3Function words

According to D. W. Whitney (1881; cited in Haugen 1950: 224), “nouns are most easily borrowed, thenthe various other parts of speech, then suffixes, then inflections, then sounds.” Nonetheless, theselanguages use Arabic for the function words listed in Table 2 below. All six languages use Arabic
loanwords for the function words ‘for example’ (Arabic maθalan), ‘maybe’ (Arabic mumkin), and‘when’ (waqt —’time’). The five languages other than Indonesian use a loanword for the function word
‘but’ (Arabic ammaː. laːkin). Given that these languages would have had their own native conjunctives,
adverbs, and the like, the fact that they all borrowed function words from Arabic might have asocio-psychological explanation.
Table 2: Function words borrowed from Arabic (words in parenthesis are words other than Arabic loanwords)
Meaning
Persian
TurkishUrdu
Indonesian Swahili
Uyghur
‘and’
va
ve
vä
‘almost’taqrībantaqriːban
karibu (zote) asasän
‘but’
ammā
ama
leːkinlakiniämma, likin
ʽ(in that) case’ (dar īn)sūrat (o) hal(de) suːrat(dalam) hal wakati
waqit
(itu)
‘even if’walaw(pun)mabada‘for example’ masalanmeselamasalanmisal(nya)mäsilän
ʽmaybeʼmomkenmükünmumkinmungkinlabda
mumkin‘when (clause)’ waqtī(ke)
vakit
waqt
waktu
wakati (wa) waqit

4

Borrowed forms

A loanword’s morphological features can provide hints as to the word’s channel of transmission.
Hereunder, we examine two Arabic phonemes q and ḍ and Arabic’s feminine endings.
4.1. Arabic q equivalent
The Arabic phoneme q can represent a voiceless consonant (ʔ or q) or voiced consonant (ɡ or ɢ). In
urban dialects and in Modern Standard Arabic, it represents the former. ‘Coffee,’ for example, is ʔahwa
in Egyptian Arabic, ʔahwe in Syrian Arabic, qəhwa in Moroccan Arabic, and qahwa in Modern
Standard Arabic. On the other hand, q represents a voiced consonant (specifically, ɡ) in Arabianpeninsula dialects and other Bedouin dialects. It may also have represented a voiced consonant(specifically, ɢ) in the Quranic Arabic of the 7th century. The same word, ‘coffee,’ is pronounced gahwain Saudi Arabian and ghawa in Bahrain. As for the Arabic loanwords in the six languages, the qequivalents in these loanwords represent a voiceless consonant (either k or q) (see Table 3).
Table 3: How the phoneme q is pronounced in Arabic loanwords
Meaning
ArabicPersian
TurkishUrdu
Indonesian Swahili
Uyghur
ʽpenʼ
qalam
qalam
kalam
qalam
kalam*
kalamuqäläm
ʽrightʼ
ħaqq
haqq
hak
haqq
hak
haki
haqq
ʽtombʼ
qabr
qabr
kabir
qabr
kubur
kaburiʽeastʼ
ʃarqmaʃreqʃarkmaʃriqmaʃarikiʃärq*Indonesian kalam: Al-Qalam, name of surah 68 of the Quran. (Jones 2007: 140)
We can rule out the possibility that the six languages received the above loanwords directly and orally
from the Arabian Peninsula—if they had, the q equivalents would have represented a voiced rather thanvoiceless consonant. Nor could they have received them directly from the urban (Mediterranean) Arabic
dialects, as the speakers of these dialects did not directly engage in the Indian Ocean trade. Thus, the factthat the q equivalents represent a voiceless consonant implies that the loanwords in which they appear

47

came from classical literary forms of Arabic. Alternatively, given that q represents a voiceless q
consonant in Iraq’s sedentary dialects (Blanc 1964; Versteegh 2014: 202), this voiceless pronunciation
might have been orally transmitted to Iran (Iraq’s neighbor). Such an oral transmission would beconsistent with the fact that the Persian equivalent of the Arabic phoneme ḍ (which I discuss in 4.2
below) represents the fricative consonant z.
With regard to the loanwords in Indonesian, many of these loanwords were transmitted via writing
rather than orally. As Jones (2007) argues, ‘the Arabic loan-words have been consistently borrowed
from the literary forms of Arabic – from Classical Arabic in the case of the earlier loans, and from
Modern Standard Arabic today” (p. xxiv). As for Swahili, many of the Arabic loanwords in thislanguage would have come from the spoken forms of Arabic used among Arab traders who operated
along the east coast of Africa. On the other hand, given that the Swahili equivalent of the phoneme q
represents the voiceless consonant k, we cannot discount the possibility that the language borrowed fromclassic literary forms of Arabic.
4.2. Arabic ḍ equivalent
The Arabic phoneme ḍ can represent three sounds: the plosive consonant dˁ, the fricative consonant ðˁ,or the lateral plosive consonant dlˁ. In urban dialects (such as in Rabat, Morocco) and Modern Standard
Arabic, it represents dˁ. In Bedouin, Iraqi, and Arabian dialects, it represents ðˁ. In 7th century ClassicalArabic, it represents dlˁ. ‘Judge,’ for example, is pronounced qaːdˁiː in urban dialects, gaːðˁiː in
Bedouin dialects and some other Arabian Peninsula dialects, and *ɢaː͜dlˁi in Classical Arabic. Table 4shows the corresponding sounds in the six languages.
Table 4: Pronunciations of Arabic ḍ in loanwords
Meaning
ArabicPersian
Turkishḍaʕiːf‘weak’
za'īf
zayıf
qaːḍi
‘judge’
qāzī
kadı
ħaḍir

‘presence’riḍaː‘contentment’ rezāhāzer‘Islamic judge’hazır‘prepared’

rıza

Urdu
za'iːfqaːziː

Indonesianhaːzirhadir,
hadlirredla, réla

‘Islamic judge’

rizaː

kadi

‘Islamic judge’‘willing’

Swahili
zaifu
kazi‘Moslem judge’

Uyghurhaːzır‘present’rizaa

In Arabic loanwords in Persian, the ḍ equivalent represents the fricative z consonant. It is probably
pronounced this way because Iran is close to spoken Iraq dialects and Gulf Arabic. The ḍ equivalents inTurkish, Urdu, Uyghur, and Swahili loanwords represent the very same pronunciation, suggesting thatthese loanwords entered the languages via Persian. On the contrary, Indonesian reflects the plosive [dˁ],which is a normative literary pronunciation, as in kadi and hadir
As for Indonesian, the ḍ equivalent represents dl in some loanwords and l in others. Examples include
hadlir ʽpresenceʼ (< Arabic ħaːḍir ʻpresenceʼ), rela ʻdo with pleasureʼ (< Arabic. riḍaː ʻsatisfactionʼ),and pərlu ʻneedʼ (< Arabic farḍ ʻimposeʼ). These pronunciations reflect the 7th century classical formsof Arabic. We find a similar example in the Spanish word for ‘mayor’ alkalde (spelt alcalde in Spanish),which comes from al-qaːḍi.

4.3. Arabic feminine endings: -a and -at
In Arabic, grammatically feminine nouns end in -a, or -at if the next word is a noun. In Quranic Arabic,
however, all feminine nouns end in -at unless they come at the end of the sentence, in which case theyuse -a. In Persian and Turkish, this ending surfaces as -e rather than -a, which might reflect the fact thatspoken forms of Syrian and Iraqi dialects use this ending. In the loanwords used in the other languages,
the feminine ending takes the form of -a or -at. The following table shows some examples.

48

Table 5: The Arabic feminine ending.
Meaning
ArabicPersian
TurkishUrdu
ʽFridayʼ
jumʕa
jom'e
juma
juma
ʽsignalʼiʃaːraeʃāreiʃaretiʃaːraʽpresentʼhadiːyahadīyehediyeʽrestʼ
istiraːħa
esterāhat
ʽgovernmentʼ* ħukuːmahokūmathükümetkukuːmat* ‘Government’ is not in the 2,000-word loanword lists.

Indonesian Swahili(hari)jumat ijumaa
iʃaratiʃara
hadiahistirahat

Uyghurjümäiʃarä
hädiyä
hökümatTable 6 below shows the extent to which feminine endings in Persian’s feminine Arabic loanwords
match the equivalent endings in the other five languages.
Table 6: Correspondence in feminine endings (-a and -at) between the Arabic loanwords in
different languages (Persia and the other five languages)
Urdu
TurkisUyghurSwahiliIndone sianh-a-at-a (-e) -at (-et) -a (-ä) -at(-ät) -a
-at
-a
-at
27
15
14
16
8
12
29
1
13
Persian-a (-e) 24
1
14
2
8
1
17
1
6
-at
3
14
14
11
12
7
As the table shows, the feminine Arabic loanwords in Urdu, Turkish, and Uyghur are likely to use the-a ending where the Persian equivalent uses the -a (-e) ending. Likewise, they frequently use the -at
ending where the Persian equivalent does so. This finding suggests that the Arabic loanwords enteredthese languages via Persian. By contrast, all feminine Arabic loanwords in Swahili, and 26 out of 29 ofthem in Indonesian, always use the -a ending. This finding indicates that the endings in Swahili andIndonesian do not correlate with those in Persian. From this finding, we can infer that Swahili did notacquire the Arabic loanwords via Persian. The use of the -a ending in Swahili’s feminine Arabic
loanwords suggests that these loanwords might have been orally transmitted. On the other hand, the useof the -at ending in the case of Indonesian implies that the loanwords originated in literary forms of
Arabic. The three loanwords in Indonesian that do use the -a ending are jumlah ‘total’, majalah‘magazine’, and sejarah ‘history’ (< Arabic.
ʃajara ‘tree’).
Thus, Persian was a stepping stone intransmission of Arabic loanwords to the adjacentlanguages Turkish and Urdu, and to the Central
Asian language Uyghur. On the other hand,
Persian was not involved in the transmission of
Arabic loanwords to Indonesian or Swahili. As
regards the loanwords in Indonesian, Jones(2007: 13) argues that “traders and missionaries
from India were the main vectors of Arabic andPersian.”
Map 5. The meaning of Arabic faqiː r
Incidentally, Perry (1991; cited in Versteegh,
2014: 323) discussed the -a (-e) and -at endings in Persian, and noted the kinds of nouns in which they
appear. Specifically, the -a (-e) ending frequently appears in concrete nouns, and these nouns weretransmitted orally. On the other hand, many of the nouns ending in -at are abstract nouns, and these
originated in written forms. I identified similar trends in my analysis, but I also found many
counter-examples.

49

5

The semantic features of loanwords

The meaning of an Arabic loanword can sometimes vary depending on the language that borrowed it.
Such semantic discrepancies offer a further clue to the transmission routes.
I now discuss an Arabic word that holds the same meaning in its borrowed forms in Urdu, Indonesian,and Swahili. This word is faqiːr ‘poor (poverty)’. Map 5 shows the meanings of the corresponding
loanwords (borrowed meanings) in the six languages. The borrowed meanings in the above threelanguages are all ‘poor person’. However, the Urdu and Indonesian versions convey a more aesthetic
nuance by denoting the concepts of ‘ascetic’ and ‘mendicant.’ This finding is further evidence thatIndonesian borrowed loanwords from Arabic directly or has a closer connection to Indian languages
than to Persian.
Borrowed meanings can help us estimate the time when they were borrowed too. Map 6 shows theborrowed meanings of the Arabic word
maktab. In Arabic, maktab originallymeant ‘writing-school.’ Nowadays,
however, it typically denotes ‘office’and by extension ‘desk.’ The
corresponding loanwords in Persian,Turkish, Urdu, and Indonesian all referto ‘school,’ and the loanword in Urdu
refers specifically to ‘Islamic school.’Thus, from these borrowed meanings,
we can infer the languages borrowed
maktab at a time when it still meant‘writing-school’ in Arabic.
Map 6: the borrowed meaning of maktab

6

Summary

I analyzed Arabic loanwords in six languages around the Indian Ocean: Persian, Turkish, Urdu, Uyghur,
Indonesian, and Swahili.
When we observe the features of the Arabic, European, and Persian loanwords in the six languages, we
can understand that these languages typically borrowed their loanwords from high-prestige languages
and tended to borrow the same kinds of words as each other. The Arabic loanwords denote concepts
related to religion (specifically, Islam), language, philosophy, and society. Loanwords from European
languages, on the other hand, denote more modern concepts related to science and technology.
My analysis also highlighted cases where the borrowed meanings have deviated from the original
meaning in the donor language, yet remained semantically consistent among the six languages. Suchsemantic consistency is particularly prevalent among the modern European loanwords. The situation ismore complex, however, for words and concepts predating the Enlightenment, such as ‘color’ and thefunction word ‘if’—five of the languages borrowed these words from Persian, while Indonesia
borrowed from Sanskrit.
I also analyzed the phonemic structure of Arabic loanwords (the pronunciation of the phonemes q andḍ, and feminine endings). Judging from this phonemic structure, many loanwords probably came fromspoken forms of Arabic by oral transmission, but the loanwords in Indonesia probably came fromclassical literary forms.
We also saw how the borrowed meanings can indicate the time of transmission. Prior to the modern age,
the Arabic word maktab denoted ‘school’. The fact that the maktab loanwords in the six languages havethis very same meaning tells us that the languages borrowed the word in pre-modern times. The six
languages also use some Arabic loanwords for more modern concepts like ‘society.’ In such cases,
however, the languages did not borrow new Arabic words; rather, they deployed their existing Arabic
loanwords, resulting in a mix of loanwords for the same concept.

50

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16K02877.
References
Blanc, Haim 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haugen, Einar 1950. ‘The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing’ in Language vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 210-233.
Jones, Russel ed. 2007. Loan-words in Indonesian and Malay. KITLV Press, Leiden.
Kokken 2007. Loanwords and Foreign words in Japanese (『第30回「ことば」フォーラム－日本語の中の外来語と外国語』), National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics.
Perry, John R. 1991. Form and Meaning in Persian Vocabulary: The Arabic Feminine Ending, Costa Mesa CA:
Mazda Publishers.
Versteegh, Kees 2014. The Arabic Language, second ed. Edinburgh U.P.
Whitney, W. D. 1881. ‘On Mixture in Language’. in TAPA 12.5-26.

Word Sources
Hayasi, Tooru. 1996.『現代ウイグル語ウルムチ方言語彙集』(A vocabulary of the Modern Uyghur Ürümqi dialect),
TUFS AAILCAA TUFS, 2000. 『言語調査票2000年版』 http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~mmine/kiki_gen/query/ aaquery-1.htm;「aa_2000」http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~kmach/AA2000/AA_2000.html
Ikeda, O. & S. Takeda 1981. 『現代アラビア語小辞典』 (Qāmūs al-ʕarabīya al-muʕāṣira), Daisan-shokan.
Katsuta, S. 2002. 『オスマン語文法読本』(A Grammar of Osman Turkish), Daigaku-shorin.
Kuroyanagi, T. 1998. 『ペ日・日ペ現代ペルシア語辞典』 (Modern Persian dictionay), Daigaku-shorin, Tokyo.
Kuroyanagi, T. 2008. 『アラビア語・ペルシア語・ウルドゥー語対照辞典』 (A Contrastive Dictionary of Arabic,
Persian and Urdu), Daigaku-shorin.
Perrott, D.V. 1965. Teach yourself Swahili dictionary. Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
Suenaga, A. 1992. 『インドネシア語辞典』(Kamus Terbaru Bahasa Indonesia-Jepang), Daigaku-shorin.
Suzuki, T. & Y. Asada. 1980. 『ウルドゥー語常用6000語』 (Urdū 6000 basic words), Daigaku-shorin.
Suzuki, T. & Y. Asada. 1994. 『日本語ウルドゥー語小辞典』 (Japānī-Urdū Lugat), Daigaku-shorin.
Takeuchi, K. 1985. 『現代ウイグル語基礎1500語』 (Uyġur Tilining Asasiy 1500 sozliri), Daigaku-shorin.
Takeuchi, K. 1989. 『トルコ語辞典』 (Türkçe-Japonca sözlük), Daigaku-shorin.
Tamura, H. ed. 1980.『詳解アラビア語－日本語辞典』(Al-Qāmūs al-mufaṣṣal Arabī-Yābānī), Middle East Instituteof Japan.

51

Palatalization and hypercorrection in the history of Korean
Rei Fukui
Department of Korean Studies,
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology,
The University of Tokyo

Abstract
This paper discusses two kinds of palatalization that have been assumed to have taken placearound the 17th century in the history of the Korean language, by examining geographicaldistributions of lexical items affected by these phonological changes in modern dialects. It willbe also shown that a kind of hypercorrection occurred as a result of the interaction between these
two types of palatalization.
More specifically, the following three topics will be discussed: (1) geographicaldistributions of dialects with or without these two types of palatalization, based on the datacollected by Ogura Shinpei (1944), (2) the reason or motivation for having forms which
underwent hypercorrection, (3) the loss of initial /n/ before /i/ or /j/ which usually accompanies
palatalization. As to the last topic, we have some interesting cases of dialects preserving thisnasal in spite of the fact that they are typical dialects which underwent palatalization. In order toexplain this anomalous phenomenon, a historical interpretation will be presented.

1

Introduction

Palatalization has been one of the most famous topics in the history of Early Modern Korean 1 phonology,
because it affected not only the phonological system but also the system of orthography in many ways.
Some writers tried to write according to the old tradition, but the discrepancy between written forms andactual pronunciation became more and more prominent so that the system of orthography began to fall
into confusion.
There were two kinds of palatalization in the history of Early Modern Korean:(a) Palatalization of the alveolar stop /t/ followed by either /i/ or /j/(b) Palatalization of the velar stop /k/ followed by either /i/ or /j/
The results of these two types of changes are the same: they merged with the alveolo-palatalaffricate /c/. Also, the initial nasal /n/ before /i/ or /j/ is lost in the dialects which underwent the change(a), and this change has been discussed together with the palatalization.
The central dialect (the ancestor of the present-day Seoul dialect) experienced only the (a) typepalatalization but other dialects, especially southern dialects, experienced both types of palatalization.
And this difference gave rise to some new forms created by hypercorrection which will be discussed
later in this paper.
More specifically, the following three topics will be discussed:(1) To clarify geographical distribution of dialects with or without these two types of palatalization,
based on the data collected by Ogura Shinpei (1944).
1 Early Modern Korean refers to the Korean language used between the beginning of the 17th century and the endof the 19th century (Lee and Ramsey (2011 : 7)).

52

(2) To discuss the reason or motivation for having forms that underwent hypercorrection. This has
much to do with the way these two types of palatalization have occurred.
(3) It has been generally believed that the loss of initial /n/ before /i/ or /j/ accompanies the palatalization(a), but we have some interesting cases of dialects preserving this nasal in spite of the fact that they are
typical dialects which underwent palatalization. In order to explain this anomalous phenomenon, ahistorical interpretation will be proposed.

2

Palatalization of the alveolar stop /t/ before /i/ or /j/

According to Lee Ki-Moon (1998: 208), this type of palatalization is known to have occurred at the endof the 17th century or at the beginning of the 18th century in the central dialect. In some other dialects,
especially southern dialects, this seems to have occurred much earlier than the central dialect, as can be
known from sporadic occurrences of palatalization in the reprinted edition of the Tusi ŏnhae 2 publishedin Kyŏngsang province in 1632 (Ahn, Pyong-Hi (1957)).
The following is a selected list of items found in Ogura (1944) for examining this type of
palatalization. For each item, Middle Korean form (MK) and modern standard form (Std) is given in the
Yale Romanization, followed by English gloss, and the original item name given in Japanese (Ogura
1944). Linguistic maps are shown at the end of this paper.
Map No. 1
Map No. 2
Map No. 3
Map No. 4
Map No. 5MKtiph + sin
ilthi
tinakata
thyentitywohtaStdciphsinilchi
cinakata
chencicwohtagloss
straw sandals
agreement
to go pastheaven and earth
to be good

Ogura (1944)
藁の草鞋 (p. 157)
一致 (p. 511)
過ぎ行く (p. 378)
天地 (p. 15)
善い (pp. 355–356)

For these items, only such forms that have not undergone palatalization are given in Ogura (1944),
because for all the other areas, including Seoul, we have only palatalized forms. In such cases, he simply
left blank with an additional remark that the standard form (mainly the one used in Seoul) is used ‘ingeneral’, ‘in many places’ or ‘throughout the Korean peninsula’.
As can be seen from the Map 1 through Map 5, non-palatalized forms are found in the majority ofP’yŏngan province (平安道) and in the northern part of the North Hamgyŏng province (咸鏡北道)
known as the ‘Ryukchin’ (六鎭) dialects.
In the cases of items containing /tj/ followed by a vowel other than /i/ (namely items 4 and 5), we
have non-palatalized forms in P’yŏngan dialects but the glide /j/ is lost. For such items, the mostconservative forms such as [thjɔn-di] 3 for the item ‘heaven and earth’ and [thjo-tha] for the item ‘to begood’ are found in the northern part of the North Hamgyŏng dialects.

3

Palatalization of the velar stop /k/ before /i/ or /j/This type of palatalization is not fully treated in Lee Ki-Moon (1998), because this has not occurred in
the central dialect and not well documented so that we are not sure when this type of palatalization
occurred.
The following is a selected list of items found in Ogura (1944) in order to examine this type of
palatalization, arranged in the same way as the items shown in the previous section.
2 Tusi ŏnhae (杜詩諺解) was originally published in 1481 but a reprinted version was published in 1632 in theKyŏngsang province.
3 Citations from Ogura (1944) are made according to the phonetic transcription he uses.

53

MK
Map No. 6 kilh
Map No. 7 kitwong
Map No. 8 kye
Map No. 9 kyeth
Map No. 10 kyecip
Map No. 11 khi

Stdkilkitwungkyekyethkyeycip
khi

gloss
road
pillar
bran
side
woman
winnow

Ogura (1944)
道 (p. 35)
柱 (pp. 117–118)
糠 (pp.51–52)
側 (pp.51–52)
女 (pp.65–66)
箕 (pp. 180–181)

These maps show that non-palatalized forms are used mainly in the north western part of the peninsulaand palatalized forms in the north eastern and southern parts of the peninsula.
To sum up, non-palatalized forms are found in the following areas:P’yŏngan (平安道)Northern part of the North Hamgyŏng (咸鏡北道)
Hwanghae (黄海道)Kyŏnggi (京畿道) including Seoul.
And palatalized forms are found in all other areas:
Southern part of North HamgyŏngSouth Hamgyŏng (咸鏡南道)
Kyŏngsang (慶尚道)Chŏlla (全羅道) including Cheju (済州)Ch’ungch’ŏng (忠清道)
Kangwŏn (江原道)
The difference between the two types of palatalization is that the k-palatalization has wider areas of
non-palatalized dialects, as can be schematically shown in the following table:
Table 1. Schematic geographical distributions of t- and k-palatalization.
(NH = North Hamgyŏng, N = non-palatalized, P = palatalized)
ProvincesP’yŏngan
HwanghaeKyŏnggiChŏllaCheju

4northern NH
southern NH
South Hamgyŏng

Kangwŏn
Kyŏngsangt-palatalization
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P

P

k-palatalization
N
N
P
P
N
P
N
P

P

P

Hypercorrection

The following words are known to have a peculiar history as to the relationship between its origin andmodern forms.

54

MK
Std
Map No. 12 timcoy kimchi
Map No. 13 tisay
Map No. 14 cilsam

gloss
pickles

Ogura (1944)
漬物 (pp. 161– 162)

kiwa
roofing tile 瓦 (p. 118)
kilssam weaving
紡績 (p. 256)

One of the most famous examples is the item kimchi (No. 12 Korean pickles). Despite its modern
standard form with an initial k, its oldest attested form was MK timchoy which is from a Sino-Korean
word ‘沈菜’. If the modern standard form kimchi were the result of a phonetic change from the MK form,
we would have to assume a change like ti > ki or ti > ci > ki, but this is certainly not the case. By the way,
if we look at the Map 12, we have forms like [tʃim-tʃhi] in many typically palatalizing dialects and it iseasy to see that such a form is a normal result of the phonetic change timchʌi > cimchi [tʃim-tʃhi].
Therefore, a different kind of explanation is required about the emergence of forms beginning with kiand one possible way of explaining this is via hypercorrection. Speakers who spoke dialects withk-palatalization tended to have feelings like rural, unsophisticated and so on, when they became
conscious of the fact the speakers of the central dialect do not have k-palatalization, so that they wrongly
replaced palatalized ci- with ki- (Similar views are found in Lee and Ramsey (2011: 262)).
Another famous example is the item kiwa (No. 13 roofing tile) which shows similar distribution
pattern to kimchi. Palatalizing dialects have forms beginning with ci- but non-palatalizing dialects show
forms beginning with ki-. In the case of the item kilssam (No. 14 weaving), the distribution pattern isdifferent from the above two cases but the data for Hwanghae, Kyŏnggi and Chŏlla provinces arelacking so that it is difficult to make an exact comparison.
Beside these items, we have some other hypercorrected words for which Ogura (1944) does notpresent any data. The item kich (feathers) is another famous example.
MK
Std
Non-standard variant gloss
cich
kich
feathers
kimsaynglaypersons, people > beast
cywungsoyng (< ‘衆生’) cimsung
The next item cimsung (beast), a Sino-Korean word which was originally used in the context of
Buddhism, has a non-standard variant kimsayng. The Middle Korean word cywungsoyng (< ‘衆生’) had
two meanings: (1) living things in general, and (2) a beast, but now it is usually used with the lattermeaning.
This item is not included in Ogura (1944), nor is it well documented in any other sources so that I
would like to explain my own experience about this form. When I was in Seoul in 1985, I had a chance
to record a TV program (KBS2) in which the late Professor Lee Hi Sung 4 (90 years old at the time) gave
a lecture on the founding myths of Korea. In this lecture, he pronounced the word cimsung as kimsɛŋ inthe following contexts.
(1) 최초부텀 인간이 아니고 어느 김생이 변해서 사람이 됐다. (It wasn’t human being from the
beginning, but a beast transformed into a human being.)(2) 오늘날같이 우리가 볼 수 있는 사람이 아니라 김생이다. 김생이 변했든지 어쨌든지 해서사람이 된다. (It wasn’t a human being that we can see nowadays, but a beast. A beast transformed
into a human being in some way or other.)
Next, I would like to pay attention to some minor cases found in Ogura (1944). The next two items
are used only in one or a couple of places:

4 1896-1989, born in Kyŏnggi Kwangju.

55

MK
Std
gloss
Data in Ogura (1944) Localities Ogura (1944)tyel
celtemple [kjɔl]three places 5 in North Hamgyŏng
tinaka- cinaka- go past [ki-na-kan-da]
Hwoyryŏng (會寧) in North Hamgyŏng
Lastly, I would like to discuss a little more on the process of hypercorrection. The theory of
hypercorrection is well-motivated to explain the emergence of forms like kimchi, kiwa and so on.
However, there still remain questions like the following:(1) Who started to use hypercorrected forms?
(2)Why do we have hypercorrected forms for a particular group of lexical items?
As to the first question, it would be the speakers of the k-palatalization dialects if we take theexplanation on the emergence of hypercorrection literally. However, one notable thing about thegeographical distribution of items such as kimchi, kiwa and so on, is that the areas that have‘hypercorrected’ forms almost coincide with those that do not have k-palatalized forms. In other words,
speakers of k-palatalization dialects do not use hypercorrected forms. If so, an alternative answer would
be the speakers who live at the border of palatalizing and non-palatalizing dialects (Speakers of Kyŏnggi
dialects seem to be good candidates).
As to the second question, it seems to have much to do with the complexity of lexical histories of
items in question. For example, the word kimchi is not used in all areas. In some areas, forms such as [tʃi],[ʔtʃan-dʒi] are used and the word kimchi is most probably an imported word (see Map 12). The word
kiwa is also known for having a complex history as has been shown by Lee Ki-Moon (1991).

5

Initial nasal /n/ before /i/ or /j/

According to Lee Ki-Moon (1998: 209), the alveolar nasal /n/ dropped before /i/ or /j/ in the second halfof the 18th century. The process of this change can be presumed something like the following:[ni-] > [ndi-] > [nʒi-] > [ʒi-] > [i-]The reason why this change parallels the t-palatalization is that the change from the voiced
stop-like off-glide of the nasal to an affricate is essentially the same as the t-palatalization. By the same
token, Sino-Korean reading of the lái initial (来母) [r] can also be discussed together, because in Early
Modern Korean it is generally rendered as /n/ before /i/ or /j/.
MK
Std
gloss
Ogura (1944)
Map No. 15 niitooth
歯 (p. 93)
Map No. 16 li sepang i Sepang Mr. Lee 李書房 (p. 70)
First, we will discuss the item 16 li sepang (Mr. Lee) 6. The initial n- or r- is preserved in P’yŏngan
and northern part of the North Hamgyŏng as was the case with the t-palatalization. It is also interesting
to note that r- is preserved not only in four places in the northern part of the North Hamgyŏng but in twoplaces in the eastern part of the North P’yŏngan province. The preservation of the Sino-Korean initial rmay be considered as artificial, especially if we consider the modern North Korean orthography, but it
seems difficult to take these dialectal pronunciations as artificial.
Next, we would like to consider the item No. 15 i (tooth) which involves a previously unnoticed
characteristics as to the places preserving the initial n. As can be seen in the Map 15, n- is preserved not
5 Myŏngsin (明臣), Chongsŏng (鍾城) and Kyŏngwŏn (慶源).
6 The fact that this item is included in Ogura (1944 : 70) clearly shows that he was interested in the phonetic aspectof this item, not the semantic or lexical aspect.

56

only in P’yŏngan and northern part of the North Hamgyŏng as expected but in Cheju and in one place inChŏlla province (Kwangju 光州). For Cheju dialects, this can be verified by other sources such as Hyŏn(1985), in which this item is recorded either as /ni/ or /nɯi/. Also, the homophonous word /i/ (‘lice’) is
pronounced exactly like the word for ‘tooth’, e.g. /ni/ or /nɯi/.
By the way, Cheju dialects can be said to be the ones which typically underwent both types ofpalatalization discussed above, so that it seems difficult for such dialects to maintain the initial /ni/.
Therefore, we need to postulate a different origin for the words maintaining an initial sequence /ni/, andthis can be hinted at by the alternative form of this word ‘nɯi’ presented by Hyŏn (1985).
If we postulate two kinds of sequences /ni/ and /*nɨi/ in Proto-Korean, Cheju forms corresponding
to MK /ni/ can be derived in the following way:*nɨi > ni or nɨi (for ‘tooth’ and ‘lice’)ni > i (for all other cases)
The fact that MK had no cases of words having the sequence /nɨi/ suggests that the distinction
between /ni/ and /nɨi/ had been lost in MK and merged into /ni/. For consonants other than /n/, we have aseries of distinctions such as /ki/ : /kɨi/, /ti/ : /tɨi/, /si/ : /sɨi/, etc. in MK so that it is by no means difficult
to postulate the distinction between /ni/ : /*nɨi/ at an earlier stage of this language.
Lastly, I would like to point out one important thing concerning this hypothesis. Outside the Cheju
island, initial /ni/ is preserved in one place in the Chŏlla province (Kwangju) as I pointed out above. If
we have had such forms only in Cheju dialects, this might be taken a kind of regional peculiarity. But theexistence of such a form in a place which is geographically separated from the Cheju dialects suggeststhat the distinction between /ni/ : /*nɨi/ at an earlier stage of this language was indeed the case.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Mitsuaki Endo, as always, for inviting me to the 4th International
Conference on Asian Geolinguistics.
References
Ahn, Pyong-Hi. 1957. Chungkan Tusiŏnhae e nathanan t ŭm kugaeŭmhwa e taehayŏ (Palatalization found in thereprinted edition of Tusiŏnhae). Ilsŏk Yi Hisŭng sŏngsaeng songsu kinyŏm nonmunchip. Seoul: Ilchogak.
Hyŏn, P’yŏnghyo. 1985. Chejudo pang’ŏn yŏngu (A Study of the Cheju dialect). Seoul: Yiyu Ch’ulp’ansa.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1991. Kugŏ ŏhwi-sa yŏngu (Studies on Korean vocabulary). Seoul: Tonga Press.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1998. Kugŏsa Kaeseol (An introduction to the Korean language). Seoul: T’aehaksa.
Lee, Ki-Moon and S. Robert Ramsey. 2011. A history of the Korean language. Cambridge University Press.
Ogura, Shinpei. 1944. Chōsengo hogen no kenkyū (Studies in the Korean dialects). 2 vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

57

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

tip-sinpe tʃip-sintʃip-sɛ-gi
sa-sinsin-baltʃʰo-sinNR

藁の草鞋(straw sandals)

In many localitiestʃip-sin

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 1.

58

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

il-tʰiil-tʃʰiNR一致(agreement)

In many localities
il-tʃʰi

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 2.

59

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

ti-na-kan-dati-nɛ-kan-datʃi-na-kan-da
ki-na-kan-daNR

過ぎ行く(go past)

In many localitiestʃi-na-kan-da

0

100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 3.

60

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)tʰjɔn-ditʰjɔn-dʒitʰen-ditʰɔn-diNR

天地(heaven and earth)

In many localitiestʃʰɔn-dʒi

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 4.

61

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

tjo-tʰato-tʰatʃo-tʰaNR

善い(good)

In many localitiestʃo-tʰa

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 5.

62

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

kil
tʃil
NR

道
(road)

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 6.

63

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

ki-doŋ
ki-duŋ
tʃi-doŋ
tʃi-duŋ
NR

柱(pillar)0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 7.

64

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

kjɔ
kje
ke
tʃɔ
tʃe
tʃʰe
ʔtʃi-giŋ-iNR糠(bran)

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 8.

65

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

kjɔt
tʃɔt
tʃat
NR

側
(side)

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 9.

66

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

kje-dʒipke-dʒipkɛ-dʒipki-dʒiptʃe-dʒiptʃɛ-dZiptʃi-dʒipNR

女(woman)0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 10.

67

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)kʰi
kʰi-ʔtʃaktʃʰitʃʰetʃʰeŋ-itʃʰɛŋ-itʃʰiŋ-itʃʰi-ipʰu-nɨn-tʃʰeNR

箕(winnow)

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 11.

68

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

kim-tʃʰitʃim-tʃʰitʃim-ʔkitʃiʔtʃan-dʒiʔkak-tu-gi
NR

漬物(Korean pickles)

0

100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 12.

69

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)

ki-wa
ki-a
ki-ɛ
ke-wa
kja
tʃi-watʃi-atʃi-ɛ
tʃi-jatʃɛ-ɛtʃɛ-watʃɛ

瓦(roofing tile)tʃi-sɛ
NR

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 13.

70

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)tʃil-samtʃil-kʰutʃil-kʰu nɛŋ-itʃil-kʰuitʃil-kʰitʃit-kʰui
kil-samNR

紡績(weaving)

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 14.

71

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)ni
ni-ʔpalnɨinɨi-ʔpali-ʔpali-ʔpa-dɨii-ʔpa-dʒiNR歯(tooth)In many localities
i

0

100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 15.

72

Linguistic Maps based on Ogura Shinpei (1944)ri-sɔ-baŋni-sɔ-baŋ
NR

李書房(Mr. Lee)In many localitiesi-sɔ-baŋ

0100km
2018/05/03 Seal 8.0

Map 16.

73

Correlation between onset and vowel, and the principle of“wider distribution” as revealed in the changing process ofthe forms for “rain” in Tai-Kadai

Mitsuaki Endo
Aoyama Gakuin University

1

Changing process of the onset

Almost all of the word forms for "rain" in Tai-Kadai are the cognate forms of the proto-Tai *fon A
reconstructed by Li (1977). Aside from the forms kwən1 in Mulao and pjən1in Sanjiang 三江 Dong, thechanging process can be reconstructed asfollows: f > ph (fortition); f > h > g or w > v(fortition). According to Li (1977: 63-65, 7779), it is impossible to consider ph as theoldest form in this sound correspondence of f
(Siamese): ph (Lunchow): f (Po-ai), since there
is another series of sound correspondence ofph (Siamese): ph (Lunchow): ph (Po-ai),which should be reconstructed as *ph.
Therefore, ph- for "rain" should be due tofortition, although such a process is rather rare.
As for the geographical distribution, f- is
spread throughout the area, especially in theSouthwest.
h- experienced delabialization from *f-,which may be partially due to the dissimilation
with the following vowel whichchanged from *o to u in the
Northern area. If lenition occurs,
then h- may change into g- or w-.
Mainly in the Northernmost
area, especially in Puyi, w- further
changed into v-. Again, this is aprocess of fortition. It should becaused by the change of thefollowing vowel into ɯ or ə as
Map 1. Onset consonants of "rain" in Tai-Kadai
seen below.

74

Map 2. Enlarged map of the Northern area concerning the onset consonants of "rain" in
Tai-Kadai

2

The changing process of the main vowel
Li (1977: 272-273) reconstructed *o for themain vowel of "rain" in proto-Tai according
to the sound correspondence of o (Siamese):ï [ɯ] (Lunchow): ï [ɯ] (Po-ai), since they
are almost in complementary distribution
with the sound correspondence of o(Siamese): u (Lunchow): ɔ (Po-ai) which wasreconstructed as descending from the same*o. Li (1977: 272) says: “The final consonantof this set is dental, while the preceding set
ends in a velar or a labial except in two cases
where the final consonant is -n.”It is
impossible to consider that u, ɯ, ə are older
than o, since there are the other soundcorrespondences for *u, *ɯ, and *ə
respectively: u (Siamese): u (Lungchow): u(Po-ai) for *u;ï [ɯ] (Siamese): ï [ɯ](Lunchow): ï [ɯ] (Po-ai) for *ï[ɯ]; a (Siamese): a (Lungchow):a (Po-ai) for *ə.

Map 3. Main vowelsof "rain" in Tai-Kadai

75

Map 4. Enlarged map of the main vowels of "rain" in Tai-Kadai
Roughly from the South to the North, the narrowing changes o > u > ə > ɯ occurred, and fronting ɯ >i occurred in other places. A widening change o > ɔ > a occurred in the central area.

3

Correlation between onset and main vowel
Two maps concerning onset and main vowel aresuperimposed into one map, as seen in maps 5 and 6,
respectively.
In maps 5 and 6, the correlation between onset andmain vowel is easily observable. In the South, thecombination f + o
is dominant, and then f + u .
In the Central area, f > ph and the lowering of thevowel occurred (ph + a, ph + ɔ). In theNorthern area, there are many places where h + u, w + u are spreading. As pointed out above,it is possible that the cause of thechanges from f to h or w is dueto the dissimilation concerning
the roundness of lips.
The combination of v + ɯin the Northernmost area,
especially in the Puyi language,
is noteworthy. The combinationv+ə
is also found in theMap 5. Onset and vowel of "rain" in Tai-Kadai

76

Map 6. Enlarged map of onset and vowel of "rain" in Tai-Kadai
adjacent places. In these combinations, the main vowels ɯ and ə are unrounded, i.e. the edges of the lips
are such that the upper teeth are likely to contact with the lower lip. Since this position of articulation
is exactly that of [ v ], these combinations are very easily pronounced. Such a mechanism can be used
for the fortition from w to v.
Map 7 shows the isoglosses of v (green), ɯ (orange) and ə (brown), The distributions of ɯ and ə arewider than v. That means, in these areas without overlapping v-, the changes from u to ɯ or ə occur
without being preceded by consonant v-. However, there are 5 places in the peripheral areas where the
combination v + u
occurs as a combination v+ɯ
. That means, these places accepted an onset
v- from the neighbouring areas.
If this interpretation is right, a principle of wider geographical distribution can be postulated:
Concerning two closely related linguistic phenomena, if one property is extended in a wider area, it will
trigger another property.

77Map 7. Isoglosses of v (green), ɯ (orange) and ə (brown) in the Northern area

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by ILCAA joint research project "Studies in Asian Geolinguistics", and JSPS
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) 15K02525.
Reference
Li, Fang Kuei. 1977. A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.

78

Variation and Change of Adjectives in Niigata Dialects
Chitsuko Fukushima
University of Niigata Prefecture

Abstract
The linguistic variation of adjectives in Niigata dialects, Japanese language is interpreted withthe focus on phonological variation. Phonological, lexical and morphological variation among
the young generation is described by comparing distributions in similar linguistic maps.

1

Introduction

Niigata dialects of Japanese language are located on the border of Eastern and Western dialects.
Fukushima (2006) analysed the variation of adjectives with the focus on lexical variation. However, theadjectives in the dialects have peculiar phonological features. With the focus on phonological variation,
the linguistic variation of adjectives in the area can be interpreted. In this presentation, first,
phonological variation, and next, lexical and morphological variation among the young generation are
introduced. By comparing distributions of similar linguistic maps, the changes happening in the dialects
are described.

2

Adjectives in Niigata dialects

Watanabe (2001), a dialect dictionary of Northern Niigata dialects, includes dozens of entries ofadjectives used in Furumachi, downtown of Niigata city. Adjectives often have a long vowel in thesecond last syllable:(1) “Sweet”

Standard

amai

Niigataa:me{ai>e} /a:Ce/ C=/m/

On the other hand, some adjectives have a short vowel in the second last syllable followed by double
consonants:(2) “Deep”

Standard

fukai

Niigatafukke{ai>e} /uCCe/ C=/k/

See the list of other adjectives involved.
Table 1: List of adjectives used in Furumachi, Niigata city
“Ill-smelling”“Thick/Big”“Thin”“Dark”“Fast/Early”“Cold”

Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard

kusai
futoi
hosoi
kurai
hajai
samui

Niigata
Niigata
Niigata
Niigata
Niigata
Niigatakusse
futte:
ho:se
ku:re
ha:je
sa:me

{ai>e} /uCCe/ C=/s/{oi>e} /uCCe:/ C=/t/{oi>e} /o:Ce/ C=/s/{ai>e} /u:Ce/ C=/r/{ai>e} /a:Ce/ C=/j/{ui>e} /a:Ce/ C=/m/

Whether the consonant in the last syllable is voiced or unvoiced seems to work on the choice of either
pattern. See Figure 1, two pie graphs showing different patterns according to whether the consonant
involved is voiced or not. If the consonant is voiced, five-sixths of adjectives show the -VVCV pattern79

(e.g. ku:re). If it is unvoiced, more than half
adjectives show either the -VCCV or -VCCVV
pattern (e.g. kusse or futte:) but also has the-VVCV pattern (e.g. ho:se).
These patterns, -VVCV, -VCCV and -VCCVV,
are distinguished with having “heavy syllables.”There is another “heavy syllable” pattern, -VNCV
such as amme: “Sweet”, which is used in some
Niigata dialects.

3

Data

The data used in this presentation are 1) the FPJD 1
data, those of the elderly surveyed in 2010-2015, and Figure 1 Phonological patterns of adjectives in2) the CS (College Students) data, those of the youth Furumachi, Niigata (based on Watanabe 2001)
surveyed in 2005 and 2006. FPJD is a national
survey, in which interviews were given at 21 locations in Niigata Prefecture. As for CS, 180 college
students were asked to fill in a paper questionnaire on dialect during the linguistics class.
Linguistic maps are made using the GIS software SIS. College students’ data are plotted at thelocation of a junior high school where they went.

4

Phonological variation of adjectives in Niigata

4.1

Adjective “Red”: akai

According to Figure 2A and 2B, CS maps of “Red”, two groups of wordforms are found. Group 1
includes a standard form, akai, and its spoken form, ake: {ai>e} (Figure 2A). Group 2 includes -VCCV
or -VCCVV forms, akke, akkai and akkoi, and a -VVCV form a:ke (Figure 2B). Figure 2B shows typicaldialectal forms still maintained by the young generation, and those words show interesting distributions.
The form akke is widely distributed, and the form a:ke is found in the center of the akke distribution.
Because of the distributions, the form a:ke is interpreted to be a form newer than akke.
4.2

Adjective “Sweet”: amai

According to Figure 3A and 3B, CS maps of “Sweet”, two groups of wordforms are also found. Group 1
includes a standard form, amai, and its spoken form, ame: {ai>e} (Figure 3A). The form amage is arelated dialectal form. Group 2 includes -VNCVV forms, ammai and amme:, and -VVCV forms, a:meand a:ma (Figure 3B). Figure 3B shows typical dialectal forms maintained by the youth. While the form
amme: shows a wide and thick distribution compared with akke (in Figure 2B), the form a:me has alarger distribution than a:ke (in Figure 2B). Again the form a:me is interpreted as a form newer than
amme.
4.3

Adjective “Cold”: samui

According to Figure 4A and 4B, CS maps of “Cold”, two groups of wordforms are also found. Group 1
includes a standard form, samui, and its spoken forms, sabui, sami:, sabi: and same: {ui>i/e} (Figure 4A).
Group 2 includes -VNCV forms, sammu, sammi, sambi and samme, and -VVCV forms, sa:mu, sa:mi, sa:meand sa:be (Figure 4B). Figure 4B again shows typical dialectal forms maintained by the youth. The-VVCV form sa:me has a thick distribution occupying the central area of peripheral -VNCV forms.
Again the form sa:me is interpreted as a newer form spreading its distributions.

1 FPJD is a nation-wide geolinguistic survey, “Field-Research Project for Analyzing the Formation Process of

Dialects. ”

80

4.4

Discussion

The traditional Niigata dialects would have had three patterns of older forms, such as the -VCCV patternfor voiceless consonants, the -VNCV pattern for nasal consonants, and -VVCV for other voiced
consonants; then the -VVCV pattern with a long vowel in the second last syllable widened its
distribution even among the words with other consonants. Maybe the change occurred first in the-VNCV pattern and next in the -VCCV pattern considering the size and density of the new distribution.
Niigata city must be the center of new changes although contemporary young generation in that area
tend to use standard Japanese; Figure 1 shows the results of early innovation. Figure 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A
and 4B show how and why the change occurred in this area.

5

Lexical and morphological variation of adjectives in Niigata

5.1

Adjective “Interesting”: omoshiroi

5.1.1 FPJD map
The FPJD map of “Interesting” (Figure 5) shows contrastive distributions of Eastern dialect forms andWestern dialect forms. The standard form omosjiroi and its spoken form omosjire are only found in themost southern part of Niigata and Sado Island. The Eastern dialect forms omossje and omsssjai arefound in the northern part of Niigata and Sado Island. The Western dialect form omosji: is found in thesouthern part of Niigata. Omossjai has a peripheral distribution wider than omossje; thus omossje seems
to have originated from omossjai. Also omosji: is considered to be advancing to the north into Niigata
city.
5.1.2 CS maps
The CS maps of “Interesting” (Figure 6A, 6B, 6C) show three groups of words, the first two of whichshow distributions similar to Group 1 and 2 of “Red”, “Sweet”, and “Cold”. That is, Group 1 is astandard form omosjiroi and its spoken form omosjire, and Group 2 is omossje and omosjoi. The form
omosjoi which is not found in the FPJD map is distributed in the center of Niigata. The form omossjai
which is found in the FPJD map is not found in the CS map. In addition to these, there are Group 3 words,
which are omosji: and omoroi, both of which are Western dialect words. My interpretation is thatomosji: has been used in the southern part of Niigata for some time, and that it has expanded the
distribution even to Niigata city.
5.2

Adjective “Interesting + past tense2”: omoshirokatta

5.2.1 CS maps
The CS maps of “Interesting + past” (Figure 7A, 7B, 7C) also show three groups of words. Group 1 is astandard form omosjirokatta, and Group 2 includes omossjekatta, omossjakatta and omosjokatta. Unlike
Figure 6B, the form omosjakkata is distributed in the east of Niigata city. The form omosjokatta shows
similar distributions as omosjoi in Figure 6B. Also there are Group 3 words, which are omosjikatta andomorokatta, both Western dialect words. It is interesting that omosjikatta shows wider distributions thanFigure 5C especially in Niigata city so that this word might have been introduced as this conjugation
form in this area. Also, the older form omossjai maintains its past form in two localities.

2 Adjectives in Japanese conjugate as verbs do. Thus a past auxiliary -ta is attached to adjectives.

81

5.3

Adjective “Interesting + negative 3”: omoshirokunai

5.3.1 CS maps
The CS maps of “Interesting + negative” (Figure 8A, 8B, 8C) again show three groups of words. Group
1 includes a standard form omosjirokunai and its spoken form omosjirokune, and Group 2 includes
omossje(ku)nai/ne, omossjakunai/ne and omosjo(ku)nai. Compared with Figure 6B, the use of Group 2forms does not prevail, but there is more variety. There are forms with -ku for every possibility but*omossjane is not found. Also, the form omossjakunai is distributed in the west of Niigata city, where
omosjoi and omossjokatta are found in Figure 6B and 7B.
5.4

Discussion

The Group 2 forms in Figure 6B, 7B, and 8B are as follows:
A: omossje, omossjekatta, omo(s)sje(ku)nai/ne
B: * , omossjakatta, omossjakunai(There is neither*omossjai nor *omossjane.)
C: omo(s)sjoi, omo(s)sjokatta, omo(s)sjo(ku)nai/ne
A has a fixed distribution, B sporadic, and C emerging. Thus, B is the oldest 4, A comes next, and C is thenewest.
The group 3 forms show different distributions according to the conjugation form. The change inmorphology gradually occurs through conjugation forms of each word; that is one example of “lexical
diffusion.”

6

Conclusion

When we see only one linguistic map, it might be difficult to interpret the change happening in the area.
However, it would be possible to do so by finding similar patterns in linguistic maps. When distributions
are superimposed on each other, we cannot see them well. The present-day GIS software enables us tomake separate maps just by choosing forms we want to plot on the map. This method will help us tointerpret the change based on the variation.

Acknowledgements
This presentation is part of the outcomes of the collaborative research project “Field-Research Projectfor Analyzing the Formation Process of Japanese Dialects” carried out at the National Institute forJapanese Language and Linguistics and was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A)23242024 and (C) 16K02688.
References
Fukushima, C. 2006 Changing Dialects of the Young Generation in Niigata, Japan, with the Focus on Adjectives.
In: Guido Oebel (Ed.) Japanische Beiträge zu Kultur und Sprache: Studia Iaponica Wolfgango Viereck
emerito oblata. Studies in Asian Linguistics 68. Lincom GmbH: Munich. 125-139
Watanabe, F. 2001. Niigataken hogen jiten : Kaetsu-hen. [Dialect Dictionary of Niigata Prefecture: Kaetsu
Region.] Nojima Shuppan, Sanjo, Niigata.

3 A negative auxiliary -nai/ne is also attached to adjectives. The form -ne is a spoken, dialectal form.

4 There is a possibility that omossjai was created from omossje due to hypercorrection or back-formation because it

is well-known that a standard form -ai is often expressed as -e in Niigata dialects. I appreciate a Niigata native
Mitsuo Endo’s suggestion about this.

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Geographical Distribution and Patterns of Basic Ainu Vocabularyin Hattori and Chiri (1960)
Mika Fukazawa
The Preparatory Office for National Ainu Museum

Abstract
In order to make 100 geographical maps for the study of geolinguistics in this article, we
examined the first 100 items of the basic Ainu 200-word list found in Hattori and Chiri’s “alexicostatistic study on the Ainu dialects” (1960). Although Hattori and Chiri (1960) and Asai
(1974) basically used the same data, their judgements of “similarity” among dialects weredifferent. Here, we judge once again the cognates found in the dialectal data. The monotonoustype consists of the cognate words among all of the Ainu dialects; therefore, we would be able todraw a map with the same symbols. However, we give different symbols for different accents,
phonetic/phonological characters and so on, and then this article attempts to describe thehistorical distribution of the forms.

1

Introduction

In this article, we will examine the first 100 words of the basic Ainu 200-word list found in Hattori and
Chiri (1960), and investigate how we can use the data to make 100 geographical maps on the study ofgeolinguistics. The most important work on the Ainu dialects was conducted by Hattori, Chiri, and theircollaborators from 1955–1956. In the introduction of Hattori and Chiri (1960: 307), Hattori reported thatsome of the informants were the last native speaker or speakers of the Ainu dialect, and all of them werevery old. Some informants had even died since the investigation. Hattori also said that some speakers
could speak the Ainu language fluently, but others knew only several words. All of their investigation
was done in Hokkaido because the southern Sakhalin region was occupied by the Soviet Union at thattime, and the informants of the Sakhalin dialects lived in Hokkaido as “repatriates.” However, theresearchers could not have investigated the Kuril dialects, which had already disappeared in the early
20th century. At present, there are few native speakers of Ainu. In order to know the dialects and varieties
in the Ainu language, we will primarily refer to Hattori and Chiri (1960), Asai (1974) and Hattori(1964).
The dataset of Hattori and Chiri (1960) is based on their investigation conducted in April 1955, andHattori’s own investigation from summer 1955. Some of the data were modified and added to byreferring to later investigations with their collaborators. Map 1 shows Hattori and Chiri’s investigationof 19 Ainu dialects: 13 dialects in Hokkaido and 6 from Sakhalin. Hattori and Chiri (1960) presented alist of 200 items, which was arranged according to the Swadesh wordlists. The first 100 items are exactly
the same as Swadesh’s later 100-word list, though the second half includes several different words fromthe remaining 107 words in Swadesh’s original 200-word list. Hattori wrote a dictionary of the Ainu
dialects (1964), which was based on the field investigations in 1955–1956 by Hattori, Chiri and somecollaborators, e.g., Suzuko Tamura, who became a specialist in the Saru dialect of Ainu.
After Hattori and Chiri’s works, Asai (1974) attempted to perform cluster analysis of the Ainu
dialects. To the data of Hattori and Chiri’s list, Asai (1974) added the Chitose (Hokkaido) dialectthrough his own investigation, and the Kuril dialects from written materials (Torii 1903, Murayama
1971, Pinart 1872). He also made some modifications to Hattori and Chiri’s data on the Asahikawa,
Obihiro, and Kushiro (Hokkaido) dialects from his own data. Asai (1974) scientifically established the91dialectal groups of Ainu; he also established the “major division” between Hokkaido, Sakhalin and the
Kuril Islands in the cluster analysis, although Kindaichi (1932) had earlier suggested this.

Hokkaido:
1. Yakumo, 2. Oshamambe, 3. Horobetsu,
4. Biratori, 5. Nukibetsu, 6. Niikappu,
7. Samani, 8. Obihiro, 9. Kushiro,
10. Bihoro,
11. Asahikawa, 12. Nayoro, 13. Sōya,
Sakhalin:
14. Ochiho, 15. Tarantomari, 16. Maoka,
17. Shiraura, 18. Raichishika, 19. Nairo
The Kuril Islands:
20. Shumshu
Map 1: The Atlas of Ainu Dialects

2

Classifications in the previous studies

Hattori and Chiri (1960) and Asai (1974) basically used the same data; however, they judged“similarity” among dialects by different rules. In Hattori and Chiri (1960: 307), the cognate residues aremarked with the symbol +, and the noncognates are marked with the symbol -. When one or both of thedialects have two forms and it is difficult to decide which form is more suitable for the item, the item of
the forms is marked with the symbol ±. The symbol ○ stands for questionable cognacy; The symbol ? isused when there are some doubt about the record; The symbol • shows the informants had no answer;
The symbol ( ) shows lacuna in the record. Hattori and Chiri (1960) calculated the similarity between
dialects as the ratio of the sum of + (1.0) and ± (0.5) to the sum of + (1.0), - (1.0) and ± (1.0). The
symbols ○, ?, • and ( ) were ignored.
Asai (1974) judged the questionable records by himself and ignored some items which Hattori and
Chiri (1960) had marked with the symbols ?, • and ( ). For example, the item “28. skin” has twoclassifications of {kap} and {rus} in Hattori and Chiri (1960), although Asai (1974) omitted the item forthe following reason: In Japanese, kawa means “bark,” “skin,” “leather” and less commonly “fur.”
There are three words in Ainu which are translated as one word kawa in Japanese: (a) {kap} for “bark,”“skin” and “leather,” (b) {rus} for “hard fur” and (c) {ur} for “soft fur” and sometimes “leather” (seeAsai 1974: 86). Furthermore, in Hattori and Chiri (1960), words having the same root and different
phonemes were judged as cognates, while in Asai (1974), they were not judged as “obviously similar ornearly similar Ainu forms.” For example, the item of “42. mouth” has four classifications in Asai (1974),
as {paro}, {caro}, {cara}, or {caru}, but Hattori and Chiri (1960) judged that all of them are cognates.
However, pa- and ca- probably came from different roots, as Kirikae (1994) and Fukazawa (2014)
mentioned.
It appears that the judgement by Hattori and Chiri (1960) is too optimistic. They omitted many items
whose dialectal forms were considered to be cognates, and then used only 91 of 200 items forcalculation. On the other hand, the judgement of “similarity” by Asai (1974) seems to be vague; e.g.,
hotke and hokke for “lie” were judged as similar words, but apkas, akkas and ahkas for “walk” were
judged as different words (Asai 1974: 72). Asai (1974) did not mention his rules used for judgement, but
gave two examples of judgement as follows: “the initial /t-/ of many forms in [the Nairo dialect] seems92

to correspond to /r-/ in other dialects but they are taken as different,” and “many /ar-/, for instance, in
Hokkaido dialect and /-ara/ in Sakhalin dialects are believed similar.”3

Monotonous type: the items with phonological differences

This section will address the monotonous type of the first 100 items in Hattori and Chiri (1960). The
monotonous type consists of cognate words among dialects that were mostly omitted in Hattori and
Chiri’s calculations (1960). In this article, we will call the items including the words with only
phonological differences “Monotonous Type.” Here, we classify the words, as in (1) and (2) below, into
subitems; e.g., the item of “55. eat” is classified into the subitems of “55a. eat (V1)” and “55b. eat (V2).”
The items, as in (3) and (4), are not included in the monotonous type, and the items, as in (5), vary on acase-by-case basis. Note that there may be some different meanings and uses for any given item.
(1) Single form (SG) and plural form (PL)/reduplication form (REDUP): e.g.,a. ráyke (SG) and rónno (PL) “62. kill”
b. kupá (SG) and kupápa (REDUP for “many times”) “56. bite”(2) Argument structure of verbs (V0, V1, V2, etc.)1: e.g.,
a. ipé (V1) and é (V2) “55. eat”
b. sírsesek (V0) and sések (V1) “93. hot”
c. méan (V0) and meerayke (V1) “94. cold”(3) Inclusive (INCL) and exclusive (EXCL) we: e.g.,a. anutári (utàr) (INCL) and ciókay (utàr) (EXCL) “3. we”(4) Proximity of demonstratives: e.g.,a. tánpe, taánpe and tapánpe “4. this”
b. toánpe and toónpe “5. that”(5) Body parts or the aspect of things: e.g.,
Item “28. skin,” which Asai (1974) mentioned above
We will focus here on the items of the monotonous type as in (6).
(6) Monotonous Type2 (Hattori and Chiri 1960; Items No.1–100)
No. 1-10:
2. you [thou] / (10. many)No. 11-20: 11. one / 12. two / 13. big / 17. man / 18. person / 19. fish / (20. bird)
No. 21-30: 21. dog / 23. tree / 24. seed / 25. leaf / 28. skin / 29. meat / 30. blood
No. 31-40: 31. bone / 32. grease / 34. horn / 36. feather / 39. ear / 40. eye
No. 41-50: 41. nose / 43. tooth / 45. claw / 49. belly / 50. neckNo. 51-60: 52. heart / 54. drink / 55. eat / 56. bite / 57. see / 58. hear / 60. sleep
No. 61-70: 61. die / 62. kill / (63. swim) / 65. walk / 66. come / 68. sit
No. 71-80: 71. say / (72. sun) / (73. moon) / 75. water / 77. stone / 78. sandNo. 81-90: 83. ashes / 84. burn / 85. path / 86. mountain / 87. red / 88. green /89. yellow / 90. white,
No. 91-100: 92. night / 93. hot / 96. new / 97. good / 100. name

1 These abbreviations mean the verb taking 0 argument (the zero-place verb), the verb taking 1 argument (theone-place verb), the verb taking 2 arguments (the two-place verb), and so on.
2 The items in parenthesis may be included in the other types.

933.1 Accent
Depending on the Ainu dialect, there may be quantitative accent (QA), two types of pitch accent (PA),or no accent (NA) (See Map 2).

Pitch accent
Pitch accent on the third syllable
Quantitative accent
No accentMap 2: The Kinds of Accents

3.1.1 Pitch accent
The majority of Hokkaido dialects have a pitch accent (PA) (c.f., Chiri 1942, Hattori 1967, Tamura 2000
etc.). In the Hokkaido dialects, the dialects of Samani, Bihoro, Kushiro and Shizunai have no accent(NA) (Hattori and Chiri 1960: 311).
Items
13. big
18. person
29. meat
30. blood
34. horn
52 heart
55a. eat (V1)77. stone
92. night

Hokkaido, PA
poró
áynu
kám
kém
kiráw
sánpe
ipé
sumá
kúnne

Hokkaido, NA

Sakhalin, QA
poro
aynu
kam
kem
kiraw
sanpe
ipe
suma
kunne

Other forms
c.f. (10)c.f. (55b)ukuran3

Tamura (2000: 21) suggested “the rise from low to high is distinctive,” and “the syllables before thisrise are all low, and the syllables following it gradually fall with a certain degree of regularity.” Whenthe first syllable is open in a word with more than one syllable, the high pitch falls on the second syllable,i.e., (C1) V1 (C2) V́2 (C3...). When the first syllable is closed, the high pitch falls on the first syllable, i.e.,(C1) V́1 C2 (C3 V3...). In addition to these patterns, the accentual nucleus may in some cases be on the

3 In addition to kunne, the Raichiska (Sakhalin) dialect has the term ukuran, which1964).

94

means "nighttime" (Hattori

open first syllable, i.e., (C1) V́1 (C2) V2 (C3...), which is regarded as an exceptional accent (an irregularpattern of accent).
In Hokkaido, the accentual rules in the Yakumo and Oshamambe dialects are different from the other
Hokkaido dialects. The high pitch falls on the third syllable when the first and second syllables are open
in a word with more than two syllables, i.e., (C1) V1 (C2) V2 (C3) V́3 (C4...).
Items
2. you (thou)
23b. tree4
86. mountain

Hokkaido, PA
eaní
eáni
cikuní
cikúninupurí
nupúri

Hokkaido, NA

Sakhalin, QA
eani(no data)
nupurinupuruOther forms
c.f. (23a)3.1.2 Quantitative accent
The Sakhalin dialects have a quantitative accent, in which vowel length is distinctive. Long vowels in
Sakhalin are used for the open one-syllable words and the words with an irregular accent on the first
open syllable in Hokkaido.
Items
23a. tree
24. seed

Hokkaido, PAnípí

Hokkaido, NAnipi

Sakhalin, QA
niipii

54. drink
55b. eat (V2)58. hear
63. swim
68. sit

kú
é
nú
má
á

ku
e
nu
ma
a

kuu
ee
nuu
maa
aa

71a. say (V2)
83. ashes
85. path
87. red93a. hot (V1)100. nameyéúna/úyna
rú
húre
sések
ré

ye
una
ru
hure
sesek
re

yee
uuna
ruu
huure
seesek/seeseh
ree/tee

Other forms
c.f. (23b)tané/tane,
epuyke5c.f. (55a)wá, sus6(móna)á,mona7
c.f. (71b)8

c.f. (93b)3.1.3 Historical description
Now, we will examine Map 3, for “83. ashes.” The words for “83. ashes” have an exceptional accent,that is, an accent nucleus on the first open syllable, úna. In Yakumo and Oshamambe, interestingly,
there appears the form úyna for “83. ashes.” The consonant y [j] may be the rest of vowel length in the
4 The term {cikuni} means “(standing) tree” in Yakumo, Horobetsu and Saru, and “wood” in Yakumo and Saru

(Hattori 1964: 196). In Raichiska, there is the form cikurunii “firewood” (Hattori 1964: 107), which can beanalyzed as ci-kuru-nii 1PL.EXCL-warm_oneself_at_fire.V2-tree (c.f. Chiri 1956: 149).
5 The term {tane} is originated from Japanese tane, and epuyke does not only means “seed,” but also “fruit”, “bud”
and “flower.”
6 The Sōya dialect has the term wá, which means “to wade (across a river)” in the other dialects (Hattori and Chiri(1964). The term sus in Maoka means “to bathe in water” in Saru and Nayoro (Hattori 1964: 183).
7 Hattori and Chiri (1960: 336) analized mona into mon “motionless” and a “to sit.” Furthermore, in the forms ofNiikapu dialect, (móna)á, the part of móna could be originated from móno a “to sit still” in the Saru dialect(Tamura 1996: 392-393).
8 Hattori and Chiri (1960: 336) reported hawki in Kushiro is an intransitive verb, but ye in the other dialect is atransitive verb, and then they assumed the Kushiro dialect also has the transitive verb ye. Here, we classified hawki
as “71b. say (V1).”95

process of changing to a high-pitched accent or a long vowel. Map 4 indicates the geographicaldistribution for “13. big” and “10. many.” The word form of “many” consists of the verb poró/poro“big” and the adverbial suffix -no: e.g., the form poróno was also reported by Tamura (1996: 545). In theforms porónno/poroónno/poronno in Hattori and Chiri (1960: 314), the sound n may be inserted
between poró/poro and no. The term poroónno in Oshamambe has double vowels [oo] and a high pitchon the third open syllable, while in Sakhalin, there are the long vowel form poroono [poroːno] and theinserted-n form poronno.
There are no audio materials of the dialects in the Kuril Islands, and so it is unknown what kind ofaccent these dialects had. We can only surmise Kuril accents from the materials written by some
explorers from the 18th to the early 20th centuries: e.g., “porogó” (Krascheninnikov 1738) and “porohu”(Torii 1903). If we consider these terms in Kuril, the form poroónno in Oshamambe might go back to theproto-Ainu form *poroHó-no9. Then, the historical description is as follows:(7) Historical description of the words for “10. many”*poroHó-no > poroónno > porónno/poronno/poroono
Items
13. big
10. many

Hokkaido, PA
poró
poroónno porónno

Hokkaido, NA
poroporonno

úna
úyna
uuna
una

“13. big”
poró
poro

Sakhalin, QA

Other forms

poroonorenkayne,
okayno10“10. many”
porónnoporoónno
poroonoporonnoMap 3: “83. ashes”
Map 4: “13. big” and “10. many”
9 H of the proto-Ainu form might be pronounced as [x] or [ɣ].
10 The word okayno is found in Tarantomari, Raichiska and Nairo, and the word renkayne is found in Tarantomari,

Maoka and Raichiska.

963.2 Phonetic characteristics of the Sakhalin dialects
In this section, we will show the typical differences in the phonological and/or phonetic structures
between the Sakhalin and Hokkaido dialects (see Chiri 1942, Tamura 2000 etc.). Map 5 shows thephonetic characteristics of the Sakhalin dialects.

(Same as the Hokkaido dialects)
rV-htMap 5: Phonetic Characteristics of the
Sakhalin Dialects

3.2.1 The syllable structure of rV in Sakhalin
In Sakhalin, the coda /-r/ has changed to the onset /r-/ of a syllable /rV/ (see Chiri 1942, Tamura 2000
etc.).
Items
32. grease
39. ear57. see
60. sleep
96. new
97 good

Hokkaido, PA
kírpu/kírpo
kisár
nukár
mokór
asír
pírka

Hokkaido, NA
kirpo
kisar
nukar
mokor
asir
pirka

Sakhalin, QA
kiripu/kiripo
kisara/kisaru
nukaramokoroasiri
pirikaOther forms

3.2.2 Coda -h [-x] in Sakhalin
The codas /-p, -t, -k/ and occasionally /-r/ in Hokkaido have historically changed to /-h/ [-x] in most
Sakhalin dialects. When these consonants appear after the vowel /i/ in Hokkaido, they make the sound[-is] (not [-x]) in Sakhalin (See “40. eye”).
Items
11. one12. two
19. fish

Hokkaido, PA
sinép
túp
cép/ciép

Hokkaido, NA
sinep
tup/cup
cep

97

Sakhalin, QA
sineh
tuh
ceh

Other forms

20. bird
28a. skin
40. eye
66. come
72. sun73. moon
75. water
17. man
50. neck65. walk
93a. hot (V1)

cikáp
káp
sík
ék
cúp
cúp
wákka
ókkayo/ókkay
rekút
ápkas
sések

cikap
kap
sik
ek
cup
cup
wakka
okkay
rekut
apkas
sesek

cikah
kah
sis
eh
cuh
cuh
wahka
ohkayotekut rekuh
akkas ahkas
seesekseesehcíri11c.f. (28b)tonpi12tonpi
okkaw13
onánci14
c.f. (93b)3.2.3 Onset t- in the Nairo dialect
The Nairo dialect of Sakhalin features the onset of the first-syllable /t-/, which corresponds to /r-/ in the
Hokkaido and the other Sakhalin dialects. Kindaichi (1931: 10-11) described that investigators often
mistake retara for detara because this is an intermediate sound between /t/ and /d/ and /r/. Chiri (1942:462) explained that in Sakhalin, the onset /r-/ of the first syllable is confused with /t-/ (or /d-/). Vovin(1993: 16-18) reconstructed Proto-Ainu *d- when Common Ainu [r-] corresponds to Nairo [t-].
Items28b. skin61. die
36. feather

Hokkaido, PA(No data)ráy
ráp

Hokkaido, NA
rus
ray
rap

Sakhalin, QA
tus
tay
rah
tap

50. neck62a. kill (SG)100. name90. white

rekút
ráyke
ré
retár

rekut
rayke
re
retar

rekuh tekut
rayki
tayki
ree
tee
tetaraOther forms
c.f. (28a)cikapráp,
cikáprap15
onáncic.f. (62b)3.3 Phonological assimilation, metathesis and so on
In this section, we will take a look at the monotonous type of items with a phonological assimilationand so on. For the geographical locations of the dialects, see Map 1 in Section 1.
3.3.1 Phonological assimilation
The words for “65. walk” and “93b. hot (V0)” are the monotonous type with a phonological assimilation
across dialects, e.g., /-pk-/ > /-kk-/ and /-rs-/ > /-ss-/.
Items
65. walk
93b. hot (V0)

Hokkaido, PAápkas
sírsesek síssesek

Hokkaido, NA
apkas
sirsesek sissesek

Sakhalin, QA
akkas
ahkas
(no data)

Other forms
c.f. (93a)11 The Yakumo dialect has cikáp and círi, and the Shumshu dialect (Kuril) also has cir(i): cir, čir (Dibowski 1982),

chiri (Torii 1903). The word {ciri} may be older than {cikap} since these words show an ABA distribution.
12 The word tonpi occurs in Tarantomari. The lexical form of tonpi could be analyzed into tom “to sparkle; toshine” and -pi (< pe) classifier of “thing” (uncertain) (cf. Tamura 1996: 580; (See also Fukazawa 2016a).
13 This form is found in Ochiho.
14 The word onánci [onanʨi] is the borrowing word from the Japanese word unazi [unaʥi], which means “nape.”
15 The word {cikaprap} consists of {cikap} “bird” and {rap} “feather.”983.3.2 Phonological metathesis
The pair of iw and uy in the terms siwnin and suynin is a characteristic metathesis in Ainu. The Bihoro
and Kushiro dialects tend to have uy terms, e.g. riwka:ruyka “bridge,” nociw:nocuy “star,” ciw:cuy “tostab” and so on (Fukazawa 2016b).
In Ainu, beside the terms kunne “black,” retar “white” and hure “red,” the term siwnin (suynin in
Bihoro) is assumed to be one of the basic color terms. Tamura (1974) notes the dialectal differences in
the foci of siwnin/suynin: “light blue” and “yellowish green.” For example, in Biratori (Hokkaido), theprototypical siwnin/suynin color is a grass green, but in Bihoro (the northeastern Hokkaido dialect) it isa blue such as the color of the sky and the sea (Tamura 1996; Hattori 1964).
Items
88. green

Hokkaido, PA
síwnin89. yellow

síwninHokkaido, NA
siwninsuyninsiwninsuyninSakhalin, QA
siwninOther forms

siwninsikérpepeus16/
húre/hure

3.3.3 The insertion or deletion of onset hIn the Bihoro and Samani dialects (Hokkaido, NA), an onset /h-/ is often inserted or deleted. In the otherdialects of Obihiro, Kushiro, Bihoro, Asahikawa and Nayoro, the onset /h-/ is often deleted, e.g.,
hopuni:opuni, hoyupu:oyupu “64. fly” etc.
Hattori and Chiri (1960: 336) marked the relationships between yam in Sakhalin and hám/ham in
Hokkaido with the symbol ○. However, they suggested the historical description of “25. leaf”: yam in
Sakhalin may have originated as part of niiyam “the leaf of tree,” which comes from niiham < nii “tree”- ham “leaf.” In the Shumshu dialect (Kuril), Torii (1903) reported the same form yam as the Sakhalin
dialects.
Items
45. claw
78. sand49. belly
25. leaf

Hokkaido, PA
Hokkaido, NA
ám
ham
otá
hota
hón
on
hám/ham

Sakhalin, QA
am
ota
hon
yam

Other forms
piyóta17
pise183.3.4 Onset c- in the Samani dialect
In Samani, there is an onset /c-/ [ʧ], which corresponds to the onset /t-/ of the other dialects. However, it
might be an idiolect of the informant cited, because the other speakers of Samani did not pronounce theonset /t-/ as /c-/ [ʧ] (c.f. Komatsu 2004: 181, Nakagawa, p.c., 2016).
Items
12. two
41. nose

Hokkaido, PA
túp
etú

Hokkaido, NA
tup
cup
etu
ecu

Sakhalin, QA
tuh
etu/etupuy19

Other forms

16 As the term of the Horobetsu dialect, Hattori (1964) shows the term sikérpepeus, although Hattori and Chiri(1960: 89) shows sikérpepus. The former part of sikérpe means “an Amur cork tree,” of which endothelium isyellow, but the latter part of peus or pepeus is unknown, that probably means “water in which an Amur cork tree issoaked.”17 The term piyóta in Nukibetsu is constructed from pi “fine" + ota “sand,” and it means “white volcanic ash” inSaru (Tamura 1996: 535).
18 The term pise in Kushiro means “(generic) stomach” in Sakhalin, "the paunch of a bear" in Horobetsu and “thepaunch of a seal or a Steller's sea lion.” It also means “the bladder of a bear,” and “the air bladder of a fish” (Hattori
1964: 279).
19 The word etupuy is constructed with the nouns etu “nose” + puy "hole,” which means “nostril(s)” in Horobetsu.

993.3.5 Vowel differences
We can find vowel differences among dialects in some items, e.g., i:e and o:u.
Items
21. dog
32. grease
31. bone62a. kill (SG)Hokkaido, PA
setá
sitá
kírpu
kírpo
poné
ráyke

Hokkaido, NA
sita
kirpo
pone
rayke

Sakhalin, QA
setakiripukiripoponi
rayki/tayki

Other forms

c.f. (62b)3.3.6 Vowel contraction
Item “19. fish” is an example of vowel contraction: e.g., ciép > cép/cep/ceh. The form ciép is found in
the Yakumo, Oshamambe and Horobetsu dialects, and both forms originate from ci-e-p
1PL.EXCL-eat.V2-thing “the thing we eat.” In In the Kuril dialects, the contractive form, cep, was also
reported: e.g., “cep, čep” (Dybowski 1892), “chep” (Torii 1903).
Items
19. fish

Hokkaido, PA
ciép20cép

Hokkaido, NA
cep

Sakhalin, QA
ceh

Other forms

3.3.7 Historical description
Item “43. tooth” is classified as a monotonous-type word. The form {imak} is found in Kuril (Torii
1903) as well as the Sakhalin and the eastern Hokkaido dialects; therefore, it seems to be the oldest formof this item. The forms nimák and mimák are widely distributed in the western dialects of Hokkaido, andthe onset /n-/ or /m-/ of the first syllable might be copied from the nasal consonant /m/ of the secondsyllable, mak.21
We also suggest classifying the item “84. burn” as another monotonous type. Hattori and Chiri(1960: 336) judged that the cognateness between {uhuy} in Hokkaido and {hukuy} in Sakhalin was
uncertain, and marked it with the symbol ○. In Kuril, there appears the form uyva “to burn” (Dybowski1892), and the part of va appears to be a conjunction or a sentence-final particle in Sakhalin andHokkaido, i.e., wa. If the middle /h/ were deleted, the form uy in Kuril may have originated from {uhuy},
and if the onset /h-/ were also deleted, there might have initially been *huHuy22 before uhúy/uhuy in
Hokkaido and hukuy in Sakhalin.
Items
43. tooth84. burn

Hokkaido, PA
nimák/mimák
imák
uhúy

Hokkaido, NA
imak
uhuy
uyuy

Sakhalin, QA
imah
hukuy

Other forms
eynu23(8) Historical description of the words for “84. burn”
a. *huHuy > uhúy/uhuy > uyuy/uy
b. *huHuy > hukuy

However, in the Shiraura dialect (Sakhalin), it means “nose," and when referring to “nostril(s),” we add one more
puy to this form, i.e., etupuypuy (Chiri 1975: 316, 317).
20 This form is found in the Yakumo, Oshamambe and Horobetsu dialects.
21 You can find some words with the onsets /n-/ and /m-/ among dialects, e.g., {nimara} and {mimara} “half,” and{nismu} and {mismu} “to be lonely, deserted” (Hattori 1964: 267, 285)
22 Here, H of *huHuy might be pronounced as [x] or [ɣ] (See also (7) above).
23 This form is found in Bihoro.

100

imák, imak
imah
mimák
nimák
Map 6: “43. tooth”

uhúy
uhuy
uyuy, eynuuyhukuy
Map 7: “84. burn”

4

Conclusion

Before concluding, we will introduce a few studies on the accent of Ainu (See Section 3.2.3). Hattori(1967) proposed that Proto-Ainu had a phonological opposition of vowel length but no opposition ofpitch accent, just as in the Sakhalin dialects. Recently, in opposition to Hattori’s hypothesis that the
shortening of long vowels produced an accent kernel, Uwano (2017: 345) suggested “it is argued that in
the examples from the Ainu languages and the Ryukyuan languages the accent kernels (an ascending
kernel and a falling kernel, respectively) were already produced at the stage of long vowels. The
conclusion is that vowel shortening is not a sufficient condition and further specifications are necessary
to apply the idea widely.” Sato (2014: 133; 2016) also suggested a new idea as follows: “Ainu might101

have had an unknown glide *H. For example, in 連ん本う renhou = répo ‘to place a log on the fire’, んand う are likely to be the reflexes of this *H, although the modern form rép-o has an irregular accent on
the first syllable. The assumption of this *H enables us to explain why some CVC-stems exhibit anirregular pattern of accent: *reHp-oH > rép-o.” In Section 3.2.3, the words for “10. many,” porónno etc.,
have not an irregular accent on the first syllable, however, Sato’s idea inspired me to consider its
proto-form. If the Kuril form, porogó or porohu, was pronounced as [poroɣo] or [poroxo], we could
explain the proto-Ainu form as *poroHó-no; Here, H was estimated to be like the sound [ɣ] or [x].
In this article, we have only investigated the monotonous type of the first 100 items in Hattori and
Chiri (1960), and included the items with controversial issues, such as item “84. burn.” The Kuril
dialects are not included in the 19 dialects of Hattori and Chiri (1960); however, the forms found in Kuril
are important to describe the geographical maps historically, e.g., item “43. tooth.” When investigating
the remainder of the 100 items, we will consider the Kuril dialects and review Hattori and Chiri’s (1960)
and Asai’s (1974) judgements of “similarity” among dialects.

Abbreviations
1
1st person
EXCL Exclusive
INCL InclusiveNA
No accentPA
Pitch accent
PL
Plural

REDUP
SG
V0
V1
V2

Reduplication
Singular
Zero-place verb
One-place verb
Two-place verb

References
Asai, T. 1974. Classification of dialects: Cluster analysis of Ainu dialects. Bulletin of the Institute for the Study ofNorth Eurasian Cultures, 8: 45–136.
Chiri, M. 1942. Ainu gohō kenkyū: Karafuto hōgen wo chūshin toshite [The study of Ainu grammar: Speciallyfor Sakhalin dialects]. Reprinted: 1993 [1973]. Chiri Mashiho chosakushū [Collected works of Chiri
Mashiho], 3. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Chiri, M. 1956. Chimei Ainugo shōjiten [The glossary of the place names in Ainu]. Sapporo: Hokkaido
Publication Project Center.
Chiri, M. 1975 [1953]. Bunrui Ainugo jiten. [Classified Ainu dictionary]. Reprinted: Chiri Mashiho chosakushū
bekkan, 1 [Collected works of Chiri Mashiho Separate volume], 1. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Dybowski, B. S. 1982. Słownik narzecza Ainów, zamieszkują wyspę Szumszu w łańcuchu Kurylskim przyKamczatce. Transcribed and Translated: Murayama, S. 1971. Kitachishima Ainugo [Northern Kuril Ainu],
134–244. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Fukazawa, M. 2014. The mystery of the phonological distribution /ca/ and /pa/ in the Eastern-Western dialects of
Ainu. Papers from the second international conference on Asian geolinguistics, May 2014: 1–13. Bangkok:
Pathumwan Princess Hotel.
Fukazawa, M. 2016a. “Sun” in Ainu. Studies in Asian geolinguistics, 1: 8–9, Endo, M. (ed.), Tokyo: ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Fukazawa, M. 2016b. The basic color terms in Ainu. Endo, M. (ed.), Studies in Asian geolinguitics: Monographseries, 1; Papers from the third international conference on Asian geolinguistics, October 2016: 102–111.
Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign
Studies.
Hattori, S. 1967. Phonological structure and accent of Ainu: An attempt to reconstruct Proto-Ainu. The Study ofSounds, 13. Reprinted: 2001. Ainugokō, 2: 739–755, Tokyo: Yumani Shobou.
Hattori, S. (ed.). 1964. Ainugo hōgen jiten [Ainu dialect dictionary]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Hattori, S. and M. Chiri. 1960. Ainugo shohōgen no kisogoi tōkeigakuteki kenkyū [A lexicostatistic study on the
Ainu dialects]. Minzokugaku kenkyū [The Japanese Journal of Ethnology], 24(4): 307–342.

102

Kindaichi, K. 1931. Ainu yūkara gohō tekiyō. [An outline of the grammar of Ainu epic poetry]. Ainu
jojishi:Yuukara no kenkyū [Ainu epic poetry: research on yukar], 1. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko.
Kindaichi, K. 1932. Hokuōchimeikō: Ōunochimei kara mita Honshū Ezogo no kenkyū [Place names of Hokuō].
Kanazawa Hakase kanreki kinen Tōyōgo no kenkyū [The study of the Tōyō language: The festschrift forProfessor Kanazawa’s 60th birthday]. Tokyo: Sanseido. Reprinted: 1993. Kindaichi Kyoosuke Zenshu, 6:
161–219. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Kirikae, H. 1994. Pa/ca correspondence between Ainu dialects: A linguistic-geographical study. The proceedingsof the 8th International Abashiri Symposium: Peoples and cultures of the boreal forest, 8. Abashiri: Hokkaido
Museum of Northern People.
Komatsu, K. (ed.) 2004. Ainugo Samani hōgen jiten, Kaiteiban [The Samani dialect of Ainu, revised edition].
Samani: Samani Ainugo Kyōshitsu.
Krascheninnikov, S. P. unknown. Vocabularium Latino-Curilice. Reprinted: Kitachishima Ainugo [Northern
Kuril Ainu], 11–20, Murayama, S., 1971. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Murayama, S. 1971. Kitachishima Ainugo [Northern Kuril Ainu]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Pinart A. L. 1872. Vocaburlary in Russian and Ainu dialect of the Paramushir and Limushir Islands in the Kuriles.
Transcribed and Translated: Murayama, S. 1971. Kitachishima Ainugo [Northern Kuril Ainu], 134–244.
Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Sato, T. 2014. A Study of the Ainu vocabulary collected in 1704 by the Venerable Kunen. Bulletin of the
Hokkaido Ainu culture research center, 20: 1–133.
Sato, T. 2016. Gengoshi no kenkyūhōhō to Ainugoshi no shomondai [Method for studying the language history
and issues in the history of Ainu language]. Historical linguistics of Japan, 5: 79–89.
Tamura, S. 1974. Verb Suffixes -no and -nu in the Saru dialect of Ainu, Gengo Kenkyu, 65: 24–36.
Tamura, S. 1996. Ainugo Saru hōgen jiten [The Ainu-Japanese dictionary: Saru dialect]. Tokyo: Sofukan.
Tamura, S. 2000. The Ainu language. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Torii, R. 1903. Chishima Ainu [Kuril Ainu]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Uwano, Z. 2017. On Hattori's Hypothesis: Does Shortening of Long Vowels Produce an Accent Kernel?. Journalof Asian and African Studies, 94: 343–363.
Vovin, A. 1993. A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

103

A Geolinguistic Analysis of “Rain” and “Fish”
in the Western Sichuan Ethnic Corridor Languages
Satoko Shirai
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/University of Tsukuba

Abstract
This study discusses the significance of geolinguistic approaches to the languages of the Ethnic
Corridor in Western Sichuan with case studies. I first point out the difficulties of using
comparative methods to investigate the languages of the target area. This is probably because
long-term language contact formed a language area in which the languages share typologicalfeatures. Second, I examine the words for “rain” and “fish” in the languages of the area from ageolinguistic perspective. As for “rain,” two different roots show clear traces of areal diffusion:
they are distributed in the north and south, respectively; moreover, compounds consisting ofboth morphemes are found in the intermediate area. Moreover, some of the soundcorrespondences are found to be rather geographically organized, which is difficult to interpret
from the viewpoint of comparative linguistics. As for “fish,” the distribution of lexical variations
is almost consistent with a genealogical grouping. However, the sound correspondences can bebest interpreted through a geolinguistic approach: peripheral spots have conservative initials but
drop the glide. This study concludes that it is important to conduct a geolinguistic analysis inaddition to comparative studies to understand the historical process forming this multilingual
area.

1

Introduction

There is a multi-ethnic area called the “Ethnic Corridor” in western Sichuan (川西民族走廊; theWestern Sichuan Ethnic Corridor, hereinafter abbreviated as WSEC), 1 which extends from
northwestern Yunnan to southern Gansu (See Map 1 in Section 2). The area was first mentioned in Fei(1980), and later named by Sun (1983). From a linguistic perspective, about 30 varieties ofTibeto-Burman (TB) minority languages are spoken in this area (cf. Roche and Suzuki 2017, Sun 1982).
In this study, I will refer to these languages collectively as the WSEC languages.
At present, however, the detailed genetic status and classification of the WSEC languages remains
controversial, suggesting limitations of the comparative method. Although they share plenty of cognatesand similar typological characteristics (cf. Sun 1982), it is difficult to find shared phonologicalinnovations in these languages (Chirkova 2012).2 One of the reasons for the difficulty in comparative
investigations of this area is language contact between genetically close languages. For example,
loanwords are found even in very basic words, such as pronouns (Shirai 2018).
In this situation, the geolinguistic method is expected to contribute to the investigation,
demonstrating the historical processes underlying the formation of this multilingual area. In this study, I
first survey recent comparative studies of the WSEC languages (Section 2), and second conduct a
1 The WSEC area is almost equivalent to central part of the Tibeto-Lolo Corridor (藏彜走廊) (Shi ed. 2009) or

Eastern Tibetosphere (Roche and Suzuki 2017).
2 Matisoff (2004) points out a quasi-common sound change in Qiangic, which he calls “brightening”:
Proto-Tibeto-Burman *a tends to be raised or fronted, and typically becomes /i/ in Qiangic languages. Chirkova(2012: 138) mentions that brightening is “the only (phonological) innovation for the Qiangic subgroup proposed so
far.”

104

geolinguistic analysis of words for “rain” and “fish” as case studies (Section 3 and 4). Discussions are
summarized in Section 5. The sources of language data in this study are listed at the end of this paper.3

2

Previous studies: Genealogical studies of the WSEC languages

The detailed genealogical status of the WSEC languages (except for Pema, which is a Tibetic language)is still being discussed. Some studies regard the WSEC languages for the most part as a unit of a genetic
group, the “Qiangic” branch of TB (Matisoff 2003, Sun 1983, 2016, etc.). Other studies regard themclose to Lolo-Burmese (Jacques and Michaud 2011, Nishida 1987), Jinghpaw (Sun 2001), or languages
such as those spoken in the West Himalayas that have a hierarchical person marking system (Thurgood
1985). Additionally, some studies, such as that of Chirkova (2012), are critical of arguments for treating
the “Qiangic” group as a genetic unit.
Genealogical subgrouping of WSEC languages is controversial as well, except that a consensus on
the rGyalrongic group, which includes rGyalrong varieties,4 Khroskyabs, sTau, and so on, has almost
been reached (Gates 2012, Sun 2000, Suzuki 2012, etc.). Here, I introduce two recently proposed
hypotheses: Sun (2016: 4) and Jacques and Michaud (2011: Appendix p. 6).
Sun (2016: 4) takes a conservative view. He divides the Qiangic languages into three groups:
Northern (= rGyalrongic), Central, and Southern. Sun’s (2016) Central Qiangic consists of Qiangish(Qiang, nDrapa, Choyu), Prinmish (Prinmi and Minyag), and Tangut; and Southern Qiangic consists of
Ersuish (Shihing, Namuyi, and Ersu) and Gochang. However, Jacques and Michaud (2011) propose aconsiderably different subgrouping. They claim that Qiangic languages, together with Naish languages,
belong to the Na-Qiangic subbranch of the Burmo-Qiangic branch of Tibeto-Burman. The Na-Qiangic
subbranch is divided into three groups: Qiangic (the Northern and Central groups in H. Sun 2016),
Ersuish, and Naic (H. Sun’s (2016) Southern group is divided into the two latter groups). Jacques andMichaud’s (2011) Qiangic consists of the rGyalrongic (Rgyalrongic) group and the following
languages: Qiang varieties, Minyag varieties, Prinmi varieties, Choyu, nDrapa, and Tangut.

Map 1: The WSEC languages based on
H. Sun’s (2016) classification

Map 2: The WSEC languages based on Jacquesand Michaud’s (2011) classification

Maps 1 and 2 illustrate the WSEC languages’ geographical distribution with the genealogicalgroupings defined by H. Sun (2016) and Jacques and Michaud (2011), respectively. 5 Points ofdifference are found in (i) Southern Qiangic vs. Naic and Ersuish; and (ii) Qiangish and Prinmish ofCentral Qiangic vs. non-rGyalrongic (not subgrouped) languages in Qiangic. On the first point, I
3 H. Suzuki advised me on language identification and their names.
4 rGyalrong is sometimes used as a language name; however, it involves certain varieties that are mutually

unintelligible (Situ, Japhug, etc.). A parallel situation is found in other “languages” such as Qiang and Prinmi. In
such cases, I use the term “variety,” which may mean either language or dialect.
5 Tangut is not discussed in this study, since it is a dead language.

105

tentatively follow Jacques and Michaud’s (2011) classification of Naic and Ersuish, since they mainly
focus on the Naic languages. Thus, the second point becomes the main point of interest of this paper: ageolinguistic approach to “Central Qiangic.”

3

A geolinguistic analysis of “rain”

3.1

Classification of types

In this section, I will introduce an example that demonstrates the significance of the geolinguistic
approach to understanding the historical process forming this multilingual area. Words for “rain” (noun)in the WSEC area may be classified into the following types. Representative examples are shown in
Table 1.
[A] *r-məw type: derived from Proto-Tibeto-Burman (PTB) 6 *r-məw ‘sky / heavens / clouds’(#2473)[A’] *r-məw-compound type: Compounds involving a morpheme derived from *r-məw, except for[A+B].
[B] *r/s/g-wa type: derived from PTB *r/s/g-wa ‘water / rain’ (#2080)[B’] *r/s/g-wa-compound type: Compounds involving a morpheme derived from *r/s/g-wa, except
for [A+B].
[A+B] *r-məw + *r/s/g-wa type: Compounds consisting of *r-məw and *r/s/g-wa.
[C] Initial affricate types:(i) *tshyar ‘rain (n.)’ (#5902): Tibetan loan (WT char pa)(ii) *tshyar + *s-nak (‘black’): Compound consists of Tibetan loan morphemes (WT char nag)(iii) TS-type: With dental affricate or fricative initial, which are different from Tibetan; apparently
similar to PTB *tshyar or *(d)zil ‘dew’ (#59), though the etymology is unclear.
[D] Other types.
Language (Group)7
Rongan Zbu (G)Shaerzong Japhug (G)Ribu Zbu (G)Kangshan Tshobdun (G)Geletuo Zbu (G)Muerzong Khroskyabs (G)Yelong Khroskyabs (G)Geshitsa sTau (G)Yoci bTsanlha (G)Daofu sTau (G)Yadu Northern Qiang (Q)Mawo Northern Qiang (Q)Table 1: “Rain” in WSEC languages‘rain’ [Type]
Language (Group)
Nyato
nDrapa (Q)tɕʰə'rnak [C-ii]
Gala Choyu (Q)tɯmɯ [A]Minyag (Q)təɾ'zi [C-iii]
Qinghua Southern Prinmi (Q)təmə'notoʔ [A’]
Upper Shihing (N)gə'rdzi [C-iii]
Shihing (N)'mənatos [A’]53
Luobo Namuyi (N)mu [A]
Yongning Na (N)mɑ [A]
44
44
tʃʰan nak [C-ii] Western Naxi (N)Laze (N)mǝ qhi [A+B]
Maibeng Gochang (E)me:ʴ [A’]Lizu (E)məʁeʴ [A’]‘rain’ [Type]mə55ku33 [A+B]
hu [B]
mǝ55qhɐ̱33 [A’]gui55 [B]xu53 [B]ɸui̠ 55zɑ55 [B’](Ɂ)hĩ53 [B]hi11 [B]xɯ21 [B]fi33 [B]tshɔ̃31 [C-iii]
ɣuӕ35 [B]

6 The reconstructed PTB forms in the present paper are taken from the Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and

Thesaurus (STEDT). The numbers with a pound sign indicate the root identification numbers in STEDT.
7 Groups are indicated as follows: (G) - rGyalrongic; (Q) - Central Qiangic (Qiangic except for rGyalrongic); (N) Naic; (E) - Ersuic.

106

3.2

Geographical distribution and interpretation

Map 3 illustrates the geographical distribution of words for “rain.” Blue marks indicate [A] *r-məw typeand compound types with *r-məw. Rectangles indicate [B] *r/s/g-wa type and compound types with*r/s/g-wa. Note that the blue rectangle indicates [A+B] compounds consisting of *r-məw and *r/s/g-wa.
We find that the blue marks (*r-məw) are clearly concentrated in the northern area (rGyalrongic
varieties, Qiang, etc.), while the rectangles (*r/s/g-wa) are mainly distributed in the southern area (Naic,
Ersuish, Prinmi, etc.). The blue rectangles (*r-məw + *r/s/g-wa) are found between the two areas(nDrapa and sTau).

Map 3: “Rain” in WSEC
To interpret the relative chronology of *r-məw and *r/s/g-wa from a geolinguistic viewpoint, weneed to refer to their wider distributions; see Map 4. From the perspective of Tibeto-Burman (see Shirai
et al. forthcoming), the *r-məw type is shared by many Lolo-Burmese varieties and widely found insouthwestern China and Indochina. *r/s/g-wa is also widely scattered among the Tibeto-Burman
languages of Nepal, the India-Myanmar border, and southwestern China. Thus, the WSEC is thenortheastern limit of both types. Moreover, in southwestern China including the WSEC area, *r-məw
has a wider distribution than *r/s/g-wa. This fact suggests a relative chronology as follows: In the
WSEC area, the *r-məw type is older. Later, *r/s/g-wa entered from the southern area. Afterward,
compounds containing both *r-məw and *r/s/g-wa were formed in the area where the two types met.
Although the initial affricate types might appear to be older than *r-məw from the distribution shownin Map 3, I do not adopt this hypothesis. The initial affricate types are apparently related to the influenceof Tibetan, which is the traditional lingua franca in this area. As Sibata (1969/1977: 18) points out, “thestandard language spreads like the rainfall [among local dialects],” thus, such words as Tibetan
loanwords may be distributed sporadically.

107

Map 4: “Rain” in Tibeto-Burman and the location of WSEC
3.3

A geolinguistic analysis of the variants of *r/s/g-wa

Next, I will examine nominal morphemes derived from *r/s/g-wa, which are widely found in the Central
Qiangic languages except for Qiang and Minyag8 (that is, nDrapa, Choyu, and Prinmi varieties). Map 5shows the forms’ geographical distribution. Shapes and colors distinguish initial consonants and rhymes,
respectively.
The initial consonants in the nDrapa dialects and Daofu sTau are voiceless plosives. The Prinmi
varieties and Ersu have voiced plosives, while the Choyu dialects, Naic languages, and Lizu havefricatives (marked by triangles). Note that Ersu and Lizu are genetically close but differ in the initialconsonants of this morpheme (Ersu guɑ33; Lizu ɣuӕ35). Since Lizu is spoken among Naic languages, we
can assume that it has undergone Naic influence.
Rhymes are distributed more geographically. As illustrated in Map 6, close diphthongs (-ui) aredistributed in the southern area, back vowels (-u) are found in the central area, and front vowels (-i)
occur around the area of back vowels. Here, Ersu and Lizu share the same type (diphthongs of a backvowel and an open vowel). Note that two dialects of Choyu have different rhymes (Youlaxi Choyu xi55,
Gala Choyu hu).

8 I exclude from the discussion here the second syllable of mǝ55qhɐ̱33 ‘rain’ in Minyag, which comes from a verb

meaning ‘to precipitate’, although it may have been derived from PTB root *r/s/g-wa. This is because in somecases verbs cannot be compared straightforwardly with nouns because of different morphology.

108

Map 5: *r/s/g-wa in WSEC

Map 6: *r/s/g-wa in WSEC: Rhymes
From the perspective of comparative linguistics, this morpheme’s Proto-Central Qiangic form may
be reconstructed as *gui. 9 The following chronology could be hypothesized: The initial *g- waspreserved in Prinmish but was devoiced in other Central Qiangic varieties (nDrapa and Choyu).
Afterward, it was fricativized in Choyu. The change of rhymes into single vowels occurred rather
recently, since Choyu dialects have different vowels. The hypothesis based on the initials seems to beconsistent with H. Sun’s (2016) classification that distinguishes Prinmish from Qiangish—which
9 It is broadly found that *a in PTB changed into a front/close vowel in Qiangic (Matisoff 2004: 329).

109

includes nDrapa and Choyu—of the Central Qiangic branch. However, as the geographical distributionof rhyme types suggests, another dimension of change may have occurred geographically, that is, underlanguage contact situations.
3.4

Summary

The points of this case study can be summarized as follows: a geolinguistic approach is appropriate forclarifying the distribution of different roots. Remember that, for example, Japhug (rGyalrongic) andNorthern Qiang ((Central) Qiangic) are generally classified into different subgroups of Qiangic, while
Northern Qiang and Choyu are classified into the same subgroup in Sun’s (2016) classification: Central
Qiangic. However, Northern Qiang has a different root from Choyu but shares *r-məw-type words with
Japhug. The *r-məw type is found in the northern area where Northern Qiang and Japhug are spoken.
These facts suggest that different roots have diffused in the context of language contact. Moreover,difficulties with certain sound changes may be solved through a geolinguistic approach, although inmany cases a comparative linguistic approach is necessary to understand the phonological changes ofshared roots.

4

A geolinguistic analysis of “fish”

4.1

Classification of types“Fish” is one of a small number of cognates that are commonly found in most “Qiangic” languages.
STEDT provides the Proto-Qiangic root *r-dzwa (#5673),10 which could have been derived from PTB*s-ŋya (#1455).
Words for “fish” in WSEC are classified into the following types. Representative examples areshown in Table 2.
[A] *r-dzwa type (Qiangic type)[A’] *r-dzwa-compound type: Compounds involving a morpheme derived from *r-dzwa[B] *s-ŋya type (non-Qianic type): either Tibetan loan or cognate[B’] *s-ŋya-compound type: Compounds involving a morpheme derived from *s-ŋyaLanguage (Group)11
Ganmuniao Japhug (G)Ribu Zbu (G)Tshobdun (G)Geletuo Zbu (G)Guanyinqiao Khroskyabs (G)Wobzi Khroskyabs (G)Nyagrong Minyag (G)Geshitsa sTau (G)Yoci bTsanlha (G)Daofu sTau (G)Yadu Northern Qiang (Q)Mawo Northern Qiang (Q)Table 2: “Fish” in WSEC languages“fish” [Type]
Language (Group)Longxi Southern Qiang (Q)qaɟy [A’]ɟə'xju [A’]
Mätro nDrapa (Q)Youlaxi Choyu (Q)qa33gjüe44 [A’]
Minyag (Q)ȵa'mu [B’]33 55
Qinghua Southern Prinmi (Q)ʁdə ju [A’]
Upper Shihing (N)ʁdójú [A’]Shihing (N)ˊȵa [B]
Luobo Namuyi (N)ɣjə [A]
44 22
Yongning Na (N)tʃow jʉ [A’]Western Naxi (N)ʁjə [A]
Maibeng Gochang (E)ʁzə [A]
Lizu (E)ʁdzə [A]“fish” [Type]ʁà [A]
ɦdʑʉ3 [A]ȵa13 [B]ʁuə̱53 [A]dʒə55 [A]
ʔu55 [B]ʔo55 [B]zu55 [A]ɲi˧zo#˥ [B’]ȵi33 [B]tʃə55ni55 [A’]ȵæ35 [B]

10 “This recently reconstructed root has so far not been found outside of Qiangic / rGyalrongic.” (STEDT,

https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/etymon/5673, accessed on June 20, 2018.)
11 Group names are abbreviated as follows: (G) - rGyalrongic; (Q) - Central Qiangic (Qiangic except forrGyalrongic); (N) - Naic; (E) - Ersuic.

110

4.2

Geographical distribution and interpretation

Map 7 illustrates the geographical distribution of words for “fish.” The plus mark in the legend indicatesa compound type. Qiangic types ([A] and [A’] above) are in red, while non-Qiangic types ([B] and [B’])are in blue. The former types are found all around the area. Most non-Qiangic languages have the latter
type: Pema, Ersuish, and Naic (except for Namuyi). Moreover, a limited number of Qiangic languages
such as Geletuo Zbu, Nyagrong Minyag, and Youlaxi Choyu have non-Qiangic type words. Thesewords, that is, *s-ŋya in Qiangic, are loanwords from Tibetan. Note that the spots of Qiangic languages
with *s-ŋya are concentrated in the northwest of the area, which is closer to such Tibetan cultural centers
as Derge.

Map 7: “Fish” in WSEC
I will now examine the forms reflecting *r-dzwa in Qiangic languages except for rGyalrongic, that is,“Southern” and “Central” Qiangic in Sun (2016). Maps 8 and 9 illustrate the geographical distribution of
the forms derived from *r-dzwa. The two maps indicate the distribution of initials and rhymes
respectively, based on the same map.
As shown in Map 8, on the one hand, affricates are found in the southern and peripheral spots, while
the central spots have fricatives. This indicates that the lenition of initials occurred in the central area.
On the other hand, the central spots enclosed in the yellow line in Map 9 show roundedness in therhymes. This suggests that they contain reflexes of a glide -*w- that was dropped earlier in the peripheral
spots.
The abovementioned facts suggest that*r-dzwa spread among the Qiangic languages at a very earlystage; afterwards, separate sound changes occurred within this geographical context.

111

Map 8: *r-dzwa: Initials

4.3

Map 9: *r-dzwa: Rhymes

Summary

In this case, lexical varieties are found almost entirely consistently to follow the genealogical groupings:
most Qiangic languages have *r-dzwa, while most non-Qiangic languages of WSEC (Pema, Naic, andErsuic) do not. However, the sound correspondences of the forms derived from *r-dzwa show areal
diffusion: Affricate initials are preserved in the peripheral spots; central spots show reflexes of a glide-*w-. Although Sun (2016) classified nDrapa (spoken in the central area) into the same subgroup with
Qiang varieties (spoken in the northeastern area), they do not show a common sound change in this case.

5

Conclusion

In this study, I first pointed out the difficulties of using the comparative method alone to investigate the
WSEC languages. Although only a small number of cognates are shared by all or most members, along-term language contact situation may have formed a language area in which the languages sharetypological features.
Secondly, I examined the words for “rain” and “fish” in various WSEC languages from ageolinguistic perspective. As for “rain,” two different roots show a clear trace of areal diffusion: *r-məw
and *r/s/g-wa are distributed in the north and south, respectively, and compounds containing bothmorphemes are found in the intermediate area. Moreover, the sound correspondences of the rhymes of*r/s/g-wa show geographical influences that are difficult to interpret from the viewpoint of comparative
linguistics. The target of another case study, “fish,” is one of only a small number of cognates shared bymost of “Qiangic” languages. The distribution of lexical variations is almost entirely consistent with thegenealogical grouping. However, the sound correspondences of this root can be better interpreted
through a geolinguistic approach: peripheral spots have conservative initials but dropped the glide.
This study led me to conclude that it is important to conduct a geolinguistic analysis in addition tocomparative studies to demonstrate the historical processes that formed this multilingual area.

Acknowledgements
This work is a product of the ILCAA joint research project “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics.” This work
was supported by KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (17J40087).

112

Data sources
Chirkova (2008) - Pema; Duo’erji (1998) - sTau (Geshitsa); Evans (2001) - Southern Qiang (Longxi and Mianchi);Gong (2007) - nDrapa (Waduo); B. Huang (2007) - Khroskyabs (Yelong and Guanyinqiao); Huang(editor-in-chief) (1992) - sTau (Daofu), nDrapa (Zhatuo), Choyu (Youlaxi), Gochang (Maibeng), Minyag, Upper
Shihing, Lizu, Namuyi (Luobo), and Western Naxi; C. Huang (2007) - Southern Qiang (Puxi); Jacques (2008) Japhug (Ganmuniao); Jacques and Michaud (2011) - Laze; Jiang (2015) - Gochang (Qianxi); LaPolla (2003) Northern Qiang (Yadu); Liu (1998) - Northern Qiang (Mawo); Lu (2001) - Prinmi (Sanyanlong, Taoba, Tuoqi,
Zuosuo, Ludian, Xinyinpan, and Qinghua); Michaud (2015) - Na (Yongning); Nagano and Prins (2013) - Japhug(Longerjia and Shaerzong), Zbu (Rongan, Ribu, Geletuo, and Zongke), Tshobdun (Caodeng and Kangshan), Situ
(Songgang and Zhuokeji), Khroskyabs (Muerzong and Wobzi), sTodsde (Puxi), Choyu (Gala), Erkai, andNyagrong Minyag; S. Shirai (ms.) Fieldnotes - Situ (Mbola), bTsanlha (Yoci), and nDrapa (Mätro, Kalakhe, andNyato); Sun et al. (2014) - Shihing; Zangmianyu Yuyin he Cihui Bianxiezu (ed.) (1991) - Southern Qiang(Taoping, via Evans 2001) and Ersu (via STEDT).

References
Chirkova, K. 2008. On the Position of Baima within Tibetan: A Look from Basic Vocabulary. In: A. Lubotsky, J.
Schaeken, and J. Wiedenhof (eds.) Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Festschrift for F. Kortland, Volume 2:
General Linguistics. pp. 69-91. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Chirkova, K. 2012. The Qiangic Subgroup from an Areal Perspective: A Case Study of Languages of Muli.
Language and Linguistics 13(1): 133-170.
Duo’erji [多爾吉]. 1998. 《道孚語格什扎話研究》 [A Study of Geshizha sTau]. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue
Chubanshe.
Evans, J. P. 2001. Introduction to Qiang Phonology and Lexicon: Synchrony and Diachrony. Tokyo: ILCAA,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Fei, X. [費孝通]. 1980. 〈関于我國民族識別問題〉 [About National Identification in our Country]. Zhongguo
Shehui Kexue 1980(1): 94-107.
Gates, J. P. 2014. Situ in Situ: Towards a Dialectology of Jiāróng (rGyalrong). München: LINCOM GmbH
Gong, Q. [龔群虎]. 2007. 《扎巴語研究》（中國新發現語言研究叢書） [A Study of the nDrapa Language].
Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Huang, B. [黄布凡]. 2007. 《拉烏絨語研究》（中國新發現語言研究叢書） [A Study of Khroskyabs]. Beijing:
Minzu Chubanshe.
Huang, B. (editor-in-chief) [黄布凡（主編）]. 1992. 《藏緬語族語言詞匯》 [A Tibeto-Burman Lexicon]. Beijing:
Zhongyang Minzuxueyuan Chubanshe.
Huang, C. [黄成龍]. 2007. 《浦溪羌語研究》（中國少數民族語言方言研究叢書） [A Study of Puxi Qiang].
Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Jacques, G. [向柏霖]. 2008. 《嘉絨語研究》（中國新發現語言研究叢書） [A Study of rGyalrong]. Beijing: Minzu
Chubanshe.
Jacques, G. and A. Michaud. 2011. Approaching the Historical Phonology of Three Highly Eroded Sino-Tibetan
Languages. Diachronica 28: 468–498 (With online appendix, DOI: 10.1075/dia.28.4.02jac.additional).
Jiang, L. 2015. A Grammar of Guiqiong: A Language of Sichuan. (Languages of the greater Himalayan region).
Leiden/Boston: Brill.
LaPolla, R. J. with C. Huang. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liu, G. [劉光坤]. 1998. 《麻窩羌語研究》（中國少數民族語言方言研究叢書） [A Study of Mawo Qiang].
Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe.
Lu, S. [陸紹尊]. 2001. 《普米語方言研究》（中國少數民族語言方言研究叢書） [A Study of Prinmi Dialects].
Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

113

Matisoff, J. A. 2003. Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction.
Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Matisoff, J. A. 2004. “Brightening” and the Place of Xixia (Tangut) in the Qiangic Branch of Tibeto-Burman. In:
Y.-C. Lin et al. (eds.). Studies on Sino-Tibetan Languages: Papers in Honor of Professor Hwang-Cherng
Gong on his Seventieth Birthday. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series No. W-4. 327–352. Taipei:
Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Michaud, A. 2015. Online Na-English-Chinese Dictionary (version 1.0). <http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/
dictionaries/na/dictionary_eng_mp3.pdf, accessed on June 20, 2018>.
Nagano, Y. and M. Prins. 2013. rGyalrongic Languages Database. <http://htq.minpaku.ac.jp/databases/rGyalrong/, accessed on June 20, 2018>.
Nishida, T. [西田龍雄]. 1987. 「チベット語の変遷と文字」 [The Tibetan Language: Transition and Scripts]. In: 長
野泰彦・立川武蔵（編）『チベットの言語と文化』, 108-169. Tokyo: Tojusha.
Roche, G. and H. Suzuki. 2017. Mapping the Minority Languages of the Eastern Tibetosphere. In: K. Kurabe and
M. Endo (eds.) Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VI: “Means to Count Nouns” in Asian Languages, 28-42.
Tokyo: ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Shi, S. (editor-in-chief) [石碩 (主編)]. 2009. 《藏彝走廊：文明起源与民族源流》 [Tibeto-Lolo Corridor: The
Origin of Civilization and Nation]．Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House.
Shirai, S. 2018. The Possibility of Borrowing Basic Pronouns in Minority Languages of the Western Sichuan
Ethnic Corridor. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 39: 265-285.
Shirai, S., H. Suzuki, and K. Kurabe. forthcoming. Semantic Shifts in Expressions for ‘it rains’ in Tibeto-Burman.
In: Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VIII.
Sibata, T. [柴田武]. 1969/1977. 『言語地理学の方法』 [Methods in Linguistic Geography]. Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobo.
STEDT. The Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. <http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/
rootcanal.pl, accessed on June 20, 2018>.
Sun, H. [孫宏開]. 1982. 〈羌語支属問題初探〉 [A First Approach to the Classification of Qiangic Languages]. In:
民族語文編輯部（編）《民族語文研究文集》, 189-224. Xining: Qinghai Minzu Chubanshe.
Sun, H. [孫宏開]. 1983. 〈川西民族走廊地区的語言〉 [Languages of the Ethnic Corridor in Western Sichuan]. In:李鋒銘（編）《西南民族研究》, 429-454. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe. (Translated into English byJackson Sun in Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13(1): 1-31, 1990.)
Sun, H. [ 孫宏 開]. 2001. 〈論藏 緬 語族 中 的羌 語 支語 言〉 [On the Language of the Qiangic Branch in
Tibeto-Burman]. Language and Linguistics 2(1): 157–181.
Sun, H. [孫宏開]. 2016. 《藏緬語族羌語支研究》（国家哲学社会科学成果文庫）[A Study of the Qiangic Branchin Tibeto-Burman]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
Sun, H., D. Xu, G. Liu, and Lurongduoding [孫宏開、徐丹、劉光坤、魯絨多丁]. 2014. 《史興語研究》（中國新發現語言研究叢書） [A Study of Shihing]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.
Sun, J. T.-S. 2000. Parallelisms in the Verb Morphology of Sidaba rGyalrong and Guanyinqiao in rGyalrongic.
Language and Linguistics 1(1): 161–190.
Suzuki, H. 2012. Ergative Marking in Nyagrong-Minyag (Xinlong, Sichuan). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman
Area 35(1): 35-48.
Thurgood, G. 1985. The ‘Rung’ Languages: Notes on their Proto-Morphosyntax and Subgrouping. Acta
Orientalia 46: 79–99.
Zangmianyu Yuyin he Cihui Bianxiezu (ed.) [《藏緬語語音和詞彙》編寫組（編）]. 1991. 《藏緬語語音和詞滙》[Tibeto-Burman Phonology and Lexicon]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

114

Geolinguistic Approach to the Route of Tibetic Loanwords
in Lhagang Choyu
Hiroyuki Suzukiaab

Sonam Wangmo

IKOS, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnologyb
IKOS, University of Oslo

Abstract
This article discusses Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu, particularly their borrowing process,by referring to Choyu dialects and surrounding Tibetic languages (Minyag Rabgang Khams,
Southern Route Khams, and pastoralists’ Amdo). The analysis clarifies that Lhagang Choyu hasa multi-strata feature of Tibetic loans and their archaic stratum principally reflects Amdo,
especially the varieties spoken in Lithang County. This means that ancestors of Lhagang Choyu
speakers had some contact with Amdo Tibetan spoken in Lithang.

1

Introduction

Choyu (also known as Queyu; ISO 639-3 code: qvy) is a Qiangic language spoken by less than 10,000
Tibetans in Nyagrong, Lithang and Nyagchukha counties, Kandze Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China.
Recently, Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2016a) reported that there is one hamlet within Lhagang Town in
Dartsendo Municipality where Tibetans used to speak a Choyu-like language known as Lhagang Choyu,
and they (2017) provide a Lhagang Choyu word list with forms from Thamkhas Tibetan, a dialect
substituting Lhagang Choyu. This language comprises many Tibetic loanwords. However, phonetic
features evident in them are quite different from those of surrounding Tibetic languages. For this reason,
we examine whether we can elucidate a route of lexical borrowing from Tibetic to Lhagang Choyu
language, by comparing loanwords to the original word forms found in Choyu dialects and surrounding
Tibetic languages and dialects (see Map 1 for their location).
The data that will be discussed comprises Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu (Thamkhas dialect;
Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2017). We first compare them with those in five dialects of Choyu (Lhayul,
Rongpa, gYanglagshis, 1 Phubarong, and Bezi 2 ) and Lhagang Choyu (Thamkhas) to examine thedifferences in lexical forms and phonetic realisations. Second, we examine peculiar soundcorrespondences demonstrated in Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu compared to examples ofsurrounding dialects of the Tibetic languages, 3 Khams and Amdo. 4 All the data except for gYanglagshis
and Bezi Choyu was collected by the present authors. gYanglagshis and Bezi were retrieved from
Huang ed. (1992) and Sun ed. (1991) respectively. 5

1 See Wang (1991) for a concise description of gYanglagshis Choyu.
2 See Lu (1985) for a short description of Bezi Choyu.
3 See Tournadre (2014) for the definition of the term ‘Tibetic’.
4 Several vocabulary lists are on public resources. See Suzuki (2007) for Rangakha (Minyag Rabgang Khams),

Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2015) for Lhagang (Minyag Rabgang Khams), Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2016c) for
Shingnyag (Washul Amdo), and Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo (2017) for Thamkhas (Minyag Rabgang Khams).
5 Bezi occupies an independent dialect branch among Choyu dialects. See Huang et al. (forthcoming).

115

Map 1: Location of relevant languages and dialects
Map 1 contains the following points [in order from the west to the east]:
Khams: Jowo, Lithang, Gyongpa, dGakhog, Nyagchukha, Bajiaolou (Riji), Bajiaolou, Thamkhas,mGologthog, Phagso, Lhagang, Balsrung,Amdo: mChodrten (sDegzhongma 6 ), Horra rNyingpa (gYonru), Tshonkhor (gYonru), Horlung(Othog), Shingnyag, Warnangsumdo, Nongskor, Goroma, rDorakarmo (rMewa)
Choyu: Lhayul (Gayibuli), Lhayul (Tshorong), gYanglagshis, Rongpa (Atsong), Phubarong, Bezi,
Gala
Lhagang Choyu: Thamkhas
We have additional data on varieties of Khams and Amdo other than those shown on Map 1.
However, the map only includes varieties that have had contact with Choyu and Lhagang Choyu. In
addition, we note that non-Tibetic languages are mainly distributed mainly at the north of the
Choyu-speaking region, such as nDrapa and Nyagrong-Minyag. See Roche and Suzuki (2017, 2018)
and Shirai (this volume).
As Map 1 shows, Choyu and Lhagang Choyu are spoken in the mountainous area where the
Nyagchu River flows through. Based on historical narratives of Lhagang Choyu-speakers, theirancestors came along this river from the western part of the Choyu-speaking region, making this apotential migration route (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo forthcoming). Choyu-speakers are generallybilingual in Choyu and a local variety of Khams Tibetan. However, depending on the location of theircommunities, some might also have contact with Amdo Tibetan-speakers. Amdo-speakers’ ancestors
are also considered migrants; those living in Lithang County (in the west of Map 1) mostly came fromthe current Qinghai Lake area in Qinghai Province (Suzuki 2018a, Suzuki & Tsering Samdrup 2018),
while those living around Lhagang Village (in the east of Map 1) mostly came from the current Palyul,
northern Nyagrong, and Kandze counties (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo forthcoming). Since we do nothave any access to past detailed social situations of Choyu-speakers, an investigation of Tibetic
loanwords in Choyu and Lhagang Choyu could aid in understanding their society to some extent.
6 Regarding

pastoralists’ dialects of Amdo Tibetan, we can use another way of classification other thangeographical location. See Tsering Samdrup & Suzuki (2017).

116

2

Examples of Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu and Choyu dialects

We present typical Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu (Thamkhas), five Choyu dialects (Lhayul,
Rongpa, gYanglagshis, Phubarong, and Bezi), and Literary Tibetan (henceforth referred to as LT) in
Table 1. The order is based on geographical location: from the west to the east.
Meaning

Table 1: Tibetic loans in Choyu and Lhagang Choyu (n: native word; c: Chinese loan)
Choyu/

Choyu/

Choyu/

Choyu/

Choyu/

axe
bean
book

Lhayulˊntshe /nˉɦdʑa’ rə məˉɦgɵ /nRongpaˉntshe /nˉmȵɛ /nˉɦgwə /ngYanglagshis
mȵye55 /n
χpe55 tʃha55

Phubarongˉʂtshe /nˉχõ thʉj /n
ˊʑi keBezi
tse53 /ndʑɯ35 dʑɯ35

Lhagang
Choyu/
Thamkhasˉhte riˉhsɛ maˉɦgwə /nbridgechickencloth
copperˉhtso /nˉɦdʑa vʑaˊrɛˉxɯ rə /nˉhtso /nˊɦdʑa vʑaˊrja
ˊrɑ

tso55 /nrdʑa13 bʑa55
riɛ13
ra13 ɣɛ55

ˉhtso /nˊɦdʑə bʑwa
ˊri
ˊrɑ

dzã55
ʑa53
re35
ra35

´zã mbe
´ɸɕa
ˊra
ˊzɔ̃

coral
dragondeity
flowerforehead
fox
glass
gold
grandsonkhatakkidneylake
monasterymonkˊɸɕɯ rɯˊmɖʉˉl̥ e
ˊmә tʉ
ˉthə pəˉqa tʃwa /nˊxeˉxsɛˊŋo nə /nˉkha dɑˉm̥tshoˉɦla maˊɸɕə ɦdʉˊmɖʉˉl̥ iˊmә tʉ
ˉthə pəˉptʃwa /nˊxe ɦguˉŋ̊ə /nˊʑiˉkha dɑˉŋ̊khe ləˉm̥tshʉˉɦla mapɕi55 rdye33
mdʐy13
mu13 tye55
thɛ55 pɛ55
ptʃa55 /nŋ̊ə55 /nʑi13 ɣə33 ʑi13 /n
rvu13 lo33 /n
mtshy55
pɛ13 ndi33

ˊɕʉ ɦdʉˉɳɖuˉl̥ iˉme tʉ
ˊthɛ ɦbə li
ˉɕe ɦguˉɴ̥aj
ˉsu tshə /cˉqha dɑˊŋ̊khe ləˉm̥tshuˉɦgũ mbi
ˉɦla’ mondʐy53
ɬi53
mo35 to53
the55 pɐ55 li55
wa35
ŋ̊e55 /n55sə55
̃ sə̃ /c
khe55 lø55
tshi55-

ˉɕɯ rɯˊɳɖuˉl̥ eˉmә toˊtha pe
ˊɣa
ˉɕe
ˉhsəɣ
ˉtsha wuˉkha teˉŋ̊khi ma
ˉn̥tshuˉɦgõ mbe
ˉwla me

new
old
owl
power
rabbitrice
sandshadow
shoulderSichuanpepperTibetantiger

ˉhsa ɦbeˉɦȵi ɦbeˉkhɛ ɦõˊrə voˉmɖɛˊɸɕi maˉm̥phɛ rə /nˊɦdʑa ɦgɵˉhsa paˉɦȵi pa
ˉkhu /nˊrə kõˉmɖɛˊhsaˊȵi ʈhəˉm̥phə rə /nˉsə /nxsar55 pe55
ȵur13 pe55
khu55 lu55 xu33 /nɬi13 /nmdʐiɛ13ɕi13 ma55
ȵe13 qo55 /nphiɛ55rdʑe13 rgo55

ˉsə ɦbiˉɦȵĩ’ mbiˊχl̥ iˉmɖwa
ˊɕwә ɦgɑˉm̥phә /nˉm̥phi /nˉsə /nse55 pi33
ȵẽ55 pi33
ʐi35 ko55
ndʐɛ35
ɕi35 ma53
na55 /nkho55 te53 /n
la55 tsə53 /cˉhsa ɦbeˉɦȵĩ mbeˊɣu paˊɦʁwɑ
ˊrə ɣõˉmɖwa´tɕә ma´ʈә nɑ´pʈhɑ peˉɦja maˊpɵ riˉhtɑˊpe riˉhtɑpe55 ri55
sta55

ˊpe ɦbaˉhtɑ

ta53

ˊpo peˉhtɑɣ

LT
sta resran mayi ge/
dpe chazam pabya
ras
zangs/
rag
byu ru’brug
lha
me togthod pa
wa
shel
gser
tsha bokha btags
mkhal mamtsho
dgon pa
bla ma/ban degsar parnying ba’ug padbang
ri bong’bras
bye magrib maphrag pag.yer ma/rgya rgod 7
bod
stag

The native word for ‘book’ in Lhagang Choyu as seen in Table 1 indicates a relationship between
Lhagang Choyu and Choyu. The form /ˉɦgwə/ only appears in Lhagang Choyu, and it corresponds to/ˉɦgwə/ in Rongpa Choyu and /ˉɦgɵ/ in Lhayul Choyu. It is also recorded as dgod8 in the Tibetan script in
Litang Xianzhi (1996:474). This form might be maintained in dialects spoken within Lithang County
7 The form rgya rgod is not a LT word but a local word form that, in fact, denotes ‘chili’ and not ‘Sichuan pepper’.

In the Lhagang dialect of Minyag Rabgang Khams, this word means ‘wild onion’ (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo toappear).
8 This spelling might be pronounced as [ɦgɵ] (tone unspecifiable) in a local manner. The meaning of this LT
spelling is ‘laugh,’ which is not related to the context here.

117because the dialects of gYanglagshis (Nyagrong County) and Phubarong (Nyagchukha County) use
Tibetic loanwords that are different from each other, i.e., LT dpe cha and yi ge, respectively. The former
word form is mainly used in Amdo Tibetan while the latter is used in Khams Tibetan. Moreover, thephonetic realisation is noteworthy. An initial uvular sound corresponding to LT dp, /χp/, is analysed as
an archaic sound because Amdo Tibetan generally has a /χw/ sound for LT dp, and so do varieties
spoken in Lithang. This situation implies that the form of the gYanglagshis dialect is an older borrowing.
However, on the contrary, its vowel in the second syllable /a/ suggests a new loan. In any case, since thedescription of this dialect is not given by the present author, we cannot consider the sound form aphonetic reality. In the case of the Phubarong dialect, it is worth noting that the dialect uses a /ʑ/ soundcorresponding to LT y. This sound correspondence is a minor case in Khams Tibetan (Suzuki 2016b,
2018a), and the same sound correspondence is merely demonstrated in the Lamdo dialect(Sems-kyi-nyila group: spoken in Lamdo hamlet of Shangri-La Municipality) within the closest place.
Dialects belonging to the sPomborgang group (Suzuki 2018b) spoken near the Choyu-speaking region
have a similar sound correspondence, but it is not the case for the word with a LT simplex y. To sum up,
the word ‘book’ is one of the suggestive examples with which one can access the history of language
contact in these languages. 9
In addition to that, we note that Choyu dialects (and possibly Lhagang Choyu too) receive more
Tibetic loanwords due to language contact, therefore experiencing a rapid language change. For
example, the word for ‘sun’ in Lhagang Choyu is a native word /ˉmi tsi/ as is the case in Phubarong
Choyu /ˉmə’ htsə/. However, Lhayul Choyu now employs /ˊȵi ma/, a Tibetic loan derived from LT nyi
ma.
For more general discussions, we point out particular sound correspondences illustrated in the
Tibetic loanwords in Lhagang Choyu:
LT initial w and ’ : /ɣ/ (‘fox’; ‘owl’)
LT initial z : /z/ (‘bridge’, ‘copper’)
LT initial db and ’ : /ʁ/ (‘power’)
LT initial phr : /pʈh/ (‘shoulder’)LT vowel a at word-final: /e/ (‘old’, ‘god’, ‘monk’, ‘monastery’, etc.) or /a/ (‘owl’, ‘sand’, ‘pepper’)LT rhyme er: /əɣ/ (‘gold’)
The features of sound correspondences illustrated in loanwords in Lhagang Choyu are not alwayscommon in Choyu dialects. Hence, it is significant to analyse how the differences occurred bycomparing the data of potential origins and varieties of the neighbouring Tibetic languages.

3

Analysis of the route of loans

In order to analyse the route of loanwords, we have to find cases in which a LT form corresponds tovarious sounds following spatial/dialectal (synchronic) and/or temporal (diachronic) differences. The
latter case can be examined through the sound correspondence of a LT rhyme a (single vowel without
finals). As pointed out in Section 2, Lhagang Choyu has two principal sound correspondences: /e/ and/a/. We consider the first sound correspondence to be the oldest. The sound correspondence between LT
rhyme a and lower front vowels /i, e, ɛ/ is widely illustrated in rGyalrongic and Qiangic languages.
Lhagang Choyu also applies this sound change. When we deal with the issue of the route of loanwords,
we have to pay attention to the differences in loanwords’ strata. In this article, we mainly choose words
in the older stratum of loans in order to elucidate the varieties from which the Tibetic language Lhagang
Choyu has borrowed Tibetic words.

9 Other than word forms, there is a possibility of discussing the influence from Tibetic languages regarding thesemantic field and change if one examines a specific semantic change, e.g., the word form for ‘rain’ compared tothat for ‘sky.’ This example is an interesting case discussed by Shirai et al. (2018) and Suzuki (2018c).

118

Among the items in Section 2, we deal with the following limited examples below: ‘fox’, ‘chicken’,‘rice’, ‘bridge’, ‘glass’, and ‘shoulder’. We first discuss the variation of word forms in relevant Tibetic
languages and then create a linguistic map for a geolinguistic analysis.
- ‘fox’
The word for ‘fox’ in LT is wa, and Tibetic languages surrounding Choyu and Lhagang Choyu
employ a form corresponding to this. However, there are principally three phonetic realisations
demonstrated within Tibetic languages: /wa/, /ʁa/, and /ɣa/. 10 /wa/ is widespread in Khams Tibetan; /ʁa/is mainly found in Amdo; /ɣa/ is found in several dialects in this area, especially in Lithang, as well as in
Lhagang Choyu /ˊɣa/. 11
Lhagang Choyu has uvular sounds distinguished from their velar counterparts in their consonantism.
Hence, when it borrowed the word for ‘fox’ from a Tibetic variety, the form must have been a velar
initial, not an uvular one. Otherwise, Lhagang Choyu may have received an uvular sound itself andmaintained its articulatory status. Therefore, we should pay attention to the distribution of dialects witha /ɣa/-form.

Legend: N=native word; U=/ʁ/; G=/ɣ/; W=/w/
Map 2: Word forms for ‘fox’ and initials
The /ɣa/-form is illustrated in both Khams and Amdo in Lithang. The /ʁa/-form also appears in somedialects in the surrounding area of the dialects with the /ɣa/-form. In Amdo especially, uvulars exist in
the consonantism. Hence, a /ɣa/-form demonstrated in Amdo is noteworthy. Lhagang Choyu has
borrowed from one of such varieties and maintained it to date. However, Lhagang Choyu has only
borrowed this word after borrowing words with /e/ vowel corresponding to LT a, e.g., /ˊpo pe/ bod pa‘Tibetan’ and /ˉl̥ e/ lha ‘deity’ (see Table 1). In addition, as shown in Table 1, some dialects of Choyu
maintain their native word forms. This fact suggests that Lhagang Choyu might have borrowed the
Tibetic form for ‘fox’ recently.

10 Tonal signs are omitted when we do not specify a given dialect.
11 See Hill (2006) for phonetic forms of various Tibetic languages of the word ‘fox’.

119- ‘chicken’
The word for ‘chicken’ in LT is bya, and Tibetic languages surrounding Choyu and Lhagang Choyu
employ a form corresponding to this. However, the form applied in Choyu is dissyllabic, and it seems tocorrespond to LT’s rgya bya, which literally means ‘Chinese chicken’. 12 For the sound corresponding to
the LT initial by, many Tibetic languages use a prepalatal fricative /ɕ/. Besides, several varieties of
Minyag Rabgang Khams also have another correspondence: an affricate /tɕ/. However, it only appears ina few words including ‘chicken’, while a fricative /ɕ/ or /ʑ/ appears in other words.
Lhagang Choyu has a monosyllabic form /´ɸɕa/, in which the initial consists of a bilabial fricative asa preinitial and a voiceless prepalatal fricative as the main initial.

Legend: N=native word; MF=monosyllabic+/ɕ/; MFV=monosyllabic+/ʑ/; MA: monosyllabic+/tɕ/
DF=dissyllabic+/ʑ/
Map 3: Word forms for ‘chicken’ and initials
In Thamkhas Khams and Lhagang Khams, we find a local native form for ‘chicken’: /´kõ go/. 13 Thismeans that Lhagang Choyu has already borrowed a word for ‘chicken’ from other varieties in Lhagang,but not before borrowing words with /e/ vowel corresponding to LT a, as in ‘fox. Paying attention tovoicing, we find that Choyu dialects use a voiced fricative, but Lhagang Choyu does a voicelesscounterpart. As seen from the discussion on the form for ‘bridge’ below, devoicing of fricative series
might not have occurred in Lhagang Choyu recently. Thus, Lhagang Choyu has received a voicelessform when borrowing the word. This suggests that the relative time of borrowing is neither recent nor
archaic: it is highly possible that the origin of the loan is a dialect spoken in Lithang or its surrounding
areas. See also the discussion on ‘bridge’ later.
- ‘rice’
The word for ‘rice’ in LT is ’bras, and Tibetic languages surrounding Choyu and Lhagang Choyu
employ a form corresponding to this. The word ‘rice’ in most parts of the Tibetosphere can beconsidered a cultural word (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2016b), and non-Tibetic languages spoken in the
Tibetosphere often use a Tibetic loan. 14 Considering the word form in Lhagang Choyu, we pay attention
to the nasal element appearing at the preinitial position because a principal difference in the word forms

12 However, we have never described any Tibetic languages, including Literary Tibetan, which use the form rgya
bya for ‘chicken’ so far.
13 The etymology of this form is unidentified. Another phonetic variety with uvulars also exists : /`qo ɴGo/ (Suzuki& Sonam Wangmo to appear).
14 See also Suzuki (2016a) and Suzuki et al. (2016) for the word ‘rice’ and its relevant words in Tibeto-Burman.

120

in Tibetic languages of the given area appears in this feature. We can find a dialectal difference between
labial prenasal /m/ and homorganic prenasal (prenasalisation in a narrow sense).
Lhagang Choyu has a bilabial nasal preinitial, /ˉmɖwa/, which reflects an older sound derived fromLT ’bras: *mbras < ’bras. Whether or not a variety can have a heterorganic labial nasal preinitialdepends on the sound system. However, in a dialect that allows this heterorganic nasal to appear as apreinitial, a form with a labial nasal is considered an older type as opposed to a homorganic counterpart.

Legend: M=labial prenasal; N=homorganic prenasal
Map 4: Preinitials for ‘rice’
Map 4 shows that differences in the preinitial nasal merely depend on the nature of the languages andthis determines whether or not a heterorganic nasal appears. In this case, we have not found any
significance of geolinguistic analysis. We can say that the Lhagang Choyu form /ˉmɖwa/ is loaned from a
Tibetic variety which can possess a heterorganic bilabial nasal preinitial. We also note that the LT rhyme-as corresponds to /a/ in Lhagang Choyu, as evidenced in the word ‘cloth’ /´ra/ (see Table 1). In the
Rongpa dialect of Choyu, we find a similar form /´rja/ for ‘cloth’ is applied, but /ˉmɖɛ/ applies for ‘rice’.
There might be a temporal difference of the borrowing between the two words in Rongpa. In any case,the sound correspondence between LT -as and /a/ is of a rare type. 15 If the forms in Lhagang Choyu
really reflect an archaic sound of the Tibetic languages surrounding it, they will also be useful ininvestigating a sound change process in Tibetic languages.
- ‘bridge’
The word for ‘bridge’ in LT is zam pa, and Tibetic languages around Choyu and Lhagang Choyu
employ a form corresponding to this. Regarding the word form in Lhagang Choyu, the voicing of theinitial catches our attention because a principal difference in the word forms in Tibetic languages within
the given area appears in this feature. We find a dialectal difference of word forms between /s/ and /z/.
Lhagang Choyu has a voiced initial that is pronounced /´zã mbe/. Judging from the vowel of thesecond syllable, this word form belongs to an older stratum of the loanwords.

15 Within the first author’s field notes, only Hor Bachen dialect shows this sound corresponding within Tibetic

languages.

121Legend: N=native word; S=/s/; Z=/z/
Map 5: Initials in ‘bridge’
Choyu’s native form includes a /ts/-initial, which is probably a cognate of LT zam at theProto-Tibeto-Burman level (*m-dzam, #3604, STEDT).
However, we cannot specify when the devoicing of Tibetic languages occurred. Presently, theTibetic varieties spoken in Lithang have a voiceless initial /s/, but it is not guaranteed that this sound wasvoiceless when Lhagang Choyu received a loanword form. Based on the vocalic quality of the secondsyllable of the word ‘bridge’ in Lhagang Choyu, it should be considered a loan belonging to the old
stratum. Therefore, even though there are two possibilities of the origin, a variety spoken in Lithang or
one spoken in the surrounding area of Thamkhas, the former is a more potential candidate. This
interpretation implies that Tibetic languages around Lithang at that time had a sound correspondence
between LT z and /z/.
- ‘glass’
The word for ‘glass’ in LT is shel, and Tibetic languages surrounding Choyu and Lhagang Choyu
employ a form corresponding to this or a compound containing this. Considering the word form in
Lhagang Choyu, we pay attention to an articulatory position of the initial because a principal differencein the word forms in Tibetic languages within the given area appears in this feature. We find a dialectal
difference in initials between a prepalatal fricative /ɕ/, a velar fricative /x/, and a prepalatal-velar
double-articulated /ɧ/ 16 (regardless of the aspiration feature).
Lhagang Choyu has a prepalatal fricative initial as /ˉɕe/. Since the sounds /ɕ/ and /x/ are distinctive inthe sound system of Lhagang Choyu, we can exclude the possibility that the original Tibetic form
includes a velar sound. However, the interpretation of the sound [ɧ] in Lhagang Choyu is unclear, and it
is also possible that it is interpreted as an allophone of /ɕ/.

16 [ɧ] attested in Amdo Tibetan is close to a double-articulated sound of prepalatal and velar in principle, whereas[ɧ] in Swedish, it varies phonetically and it is sometimes described as a “highly rounded, labiodental, velar orvelarized fricative” and a “dorsovelar voiceless fricative” (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996:171-172; based on
Lindblad 1980) in spite of the definition of International Phonetic Alphabet as a sound “simultaneous ʃ and x”. As
Lindblad (1980) and Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996:172) claim, the sound [ɧ] is to be distinguished from a velar
fricative [x]. Additionally, [ɧ] includes various articulatory manners, and this feature is also a reason why we canapply it for the specific sound attested in Tibetic languages.

122Legend: S=/ɕ/; SX=/ɧ/; X=/x/
Map 6: Initials in ‘glass’
There is no appropriate way of describing the dorsal sound corresponding to a LT simplex shdemonstrated in some Tibetic languages, especially in Khams and Amdo. Here we must distinguish adouble-articulated /ɧ/ from a mono-articulated /x/ with allophones such as [ç] and [x] 17 because Tibetic
languages spoken in this area distinguish these two sounds from each other. Amdo Tibetan spoken in
Lithang County uses /ɧ/, whereas that spoken in Lhagang uses /ɕ/ as in the local Khams Tibetan.
Varieties of Khams Tibetan spoken in Lithang County use /x/.
Map 6 shows that the Lhagang Choyu form is common to its surrounding varieties of Tibetic
languages. Looking at the Rongpa dialect of Choyu, we find that the word ‘glass’ is /ˊxe ɦgu/. Hence, we
assume that the word ‘glass’ is a recent loan. For this reason, the initial sound corresponds to that ofsurrounding Tibetic languages.
- ‘shoulder’
The word for ‘shoulder’ in LT is phrag pa, and the Tibetic languages surrounding Choyu andLhagang Choyu employ a word form corresponding to this. Considering the word form in Lhagang
Choyu, we draw our attention to the existence of a preinitial because a principal difference in the wordforms in Tibetic languages of the given area appears in this feature. We find a dialectal difference
between forms with and without a labial plosive preinitial /p/.
Lhagang Choyu has an initial with a bilabial preinitial in the first syllable as /´pʈhɑ pe/, which reflects
an older sound derived from a LT initial phr-: /pʈh-/ < *phr- < phr-. Judging from the vowel of the secondsyllable, this word form belongs to an old stratum of the loanwords. Whether or not a variety can have alabial plosive preinitial depends on the sound system. However, in a dialect that has this preinitial, aform with a labial nasal is considered to be an older type as opposed to being a homorganic counterpart.
See ‘rice’ above.

17 When one considers that /x/ has two allophones [ç] and [x], the condition is formulated as follows: [ç] /_+higher

front vowel, [x] / _–higher front vowel. Even in this simple case, the phonetic value before /a/ is always
problematic.

123Legend: N=native word; P=preinitial /p/; T=no preinitial
Map 7: Word forms for ‘shoulder’ and preinitials
Whether or not a variety can have a labial preinitial depends on the sound system. Varieties ofKhams Tibetan in this area cannot apply this pattern due to this restriction. This case resembles that of
the example ‘rice’ discussed above. However, the loanword is only applied in Lhagang Choyu while
Choyu dialects have a native word. The problem is that, as the Lhagang Choyu form /´pʈhɑ pe/ suggests,
it belongs to the older stratum of Tibetic loans. This situation implies that Lhagang Choyu had borrowed
this form before it borrowed the word ‘fox’ from Tibetic varieties spoken in Lithang. It is unclear
whether older varieties of Khams Tibetan allowed a labial preinitial to appear in the phonology. Hence,
it is also unclear whether the loan word originated from Khams or Amdo.

4

Conclusion

This article presented an overview of the Tibetic loanwords in Choyu and Lhagang Choyu and discussed
their potential borrowing route by examining six words from a geolinguistic perspective. Lhagang
Choyu has at least two strata of Tibetic loanwords, and this article discussed words belonging to theolder stratum. The discussion found that several phonetic features had originated from varieties ofAmdo Tibetan spoken in Lithang County.
The six loanwords that we discussed principally have dialectal differences in sound and not in wordform. However, as various aspects of sounds such as phonetics and phonotactics vary within the Tibetic
varieties, we can analyse the borrowing route to some extent.
The article’s result corresponds to the historical narratives that tell us that the ancestors of Lhagang
Choyu speakers, who maybe with Amdo-speaking pastoralists, have come from the present
Lithang-Nyagrong border area (Suzuki & Sonam Wangmo 2016ac, forthcoming). We can find sometraces of the history in Tibetic loanwords.

Acknowledgements
The present study is funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science [JSPS]: “International Field Survey of Tibeto-Burman Link Languages” (headed
by Yasuhiko Nagano, No. 16H02722). This article is also a part of the results of the two Grants-in-Aid
for Scientific Research from JSPS: “Investigation of Undocumented Languages in the Eastern
Tibetosphere and their Geolinguistic Research” (headed by the present author, No. 17H04774) and124

“Geolinguistic Studies of China and Adjacent Multilingual Areas Using High-resolution and Wide-area
Maps” (headed by Mitsuaki Endo, No. 18H00670).
References
Hill, N. W. 2006. Tibetan vwa ‘fox’ and the sound change Tibeto-Burman *wa > Tibetan o. Linguistics of the
Tibeto-Burman Area 29.2: 79-94. [DOI: 10.15144/LTBA-29.2.79]
Huang, B. ed. 1992. Zangmianyuzu Yuyan Cihui. Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe.
Huang, Y., sKal-bzang Lha-mo, and bZang-po. Forthcoming. Zhabayu Jianzhi.
Ladefoged, P. and I. Maddieson. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lindblad, P. 1980. Svenskans sje- och tje-ljud i ett allmänfonetiskt perspektiv. Doktorgradavhandlung, Lunds
Universitet.
Litang Xianzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. 1996. Litang Xianzhi. Sichuan Renmin Chubanshe.
Lu, Sh. 1985. Zhabayu gaikuang. Minzu Yuwen 2: 67-76.
Roche, G. and H. Suzuki. 2017. Mapping the linguistic minorities of the Eastern Tibetosphere. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics VI —Means to Count Nouns—, 28-42. https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag6_count_2017.pdf
Roche, G. and H. Suzuki. 2018. Tibet’s minority languages: Diversity and endangerment. Modern Asian Studies
52.4: 1227-1278. [DOI: 10.1017/S0026749X1600072X]
Shirai, S. this volume. A geolinguistic analysis of “rain” and “fish” in the Western Sichuan Ethnic Corridor
languages.
Shirai, S., H. Suzuki and K. Kurabe. 2018. Semantic shifts in expressions for ‘it rains’ in Tibeto-Burman. Studies
in Asian Geolinguistics VIII —It Rains—, 62-76.
STEDT=STEDT database (beta). The Sino-Tibetan
http://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl

Etymological

Dictionary

andThesaurus.

Sun, H. ed. 1991. Zangmianyu Yuyin he Cihui. Shehui Kexue Chubanshe.
Suzuki, H. 2007. Kamutibettogo Kangding Xinduqiao [Rangakha] hoogen no onsei bunseki. Asian and African
Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 2: 131-162. http://hdl.handle.net/10108/51094
Suzuki, H. 2016a. A geolinguistic description of terms for ‘rice’ in Tibetic languages of the eastern Tibetosphere.
Studies in Asian Geolinguistics II —Rice—, 52-59. https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf
Suzuki, H. 2016b. Zangyu fangyanxue yanjiu yu yuyan ditu: Ruhe kandai “Kang fangyan”. Minzu Xuekan 2:
1-13+92-94. http://211.83.241.172/mzxk/ch/reader/view_abstract.aspx?file_no=20160201&flag=1
Suzuki, H. 2018a. Litang xian ji qi zhoubian Zangzu yuyan xianzhuang diaocha yu fenxi. Minzu Xuekan 2:
35-44+106-109.
Suzuki, H. 2018b. Remarks on ‘rain’ in Tibetans’ languages in Lithang County. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics
VIII —It Rains—, 56-61.
Suzuki, H., K. Kurabe, K. Iwasa, S. Shirai, S. Ebihara, and I. Matsuse. 2017. Geolinguistic analysis of ’rice’ inTibeto-Burman.
Studiesin
AsianGeolinguistics
II—Rice—,
37-51.
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2015. Lhagang Tibetan of Minyag Rabgang Khams: Vocabulary of two
sociolinguistic varieties. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 10: 245-286.
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/85072
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016a. Lhagang Choyu: A first look at its sociolinguistic status. Studies in Asian
Geolinguistics II— Rice—, 60-69. https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag2_rice_2016.pdf
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016b. Cultural contexts of the expansion of a Tibetan word ’bras ‘rice’ in theeasternmost Tibetosphere. In Mitsuaki Endo (ed.) Papers from the Third International Conference on Asian125

Geolinguistics, 72-79. Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asian and Africa.
https://publication.aa-ken.jp/papers_3IC_Asian_geolinguistics_2016.pdf
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2016c. Vocabulary of Shingnyag Tibetan: A dialect of Amdo Tibetan spoken in
Lhagang, Khams Minyag. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 11: 101-127.
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/89211
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. 2017. Lhagang Choyu wordlist with the Thamkhas dialect of Minyag Rabgang
Khams (Lhagang, Dartsendo). Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 12: 133-160.
http://hdl.handle.net/10108/91144
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. to appear. Two folktales of Lhagang Tibetan (Minyag Rabgang Khams): Threebirds and Lark and Partridge. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics (AALL) 13.
Suzuki, H. and Sonam Wangmo. forthcoming. Migration history of Amdo-speaking pastoralists in Lhagang,
Khams Minyag, based on narratives and linguistic evidence. Archiv Orientální Supplementa.
Suzuki, H. and Tsering Samdrup. 2018. How geolinguistics deals with pastoralists’ speeches and their history: A
case study on Amdo Tibetan in Eastern Tibet. Paper presented at 9th Congress of the International Society for
Dialectology and Geolinguistics (Vilnius).
Tsering Samdrup and H. Suzuki. 2017. Migration history and tsowa divisions as a supplemental approach todialectology in Amdo Tibetan: A case study on Mangra County. Studies in Asian Geolinguistics VII —Tone
and Accent—, 57-65. https://publication.aa-ken.jp/sag7_tone_2017.pdf
Tournadre, N. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Th. Owen-Smith & N. W. Hill (eds.)
Trans-Himalayan Linguistics: Historical and Descriptive Linguistics of the Himalayan Area, 105-129. Walterde Gruyter.
Wang, T. 1991. Queyuyu. In Q. Dai, B. Huang, A. Fu, Rig-’dzin dBang-mo, and J. Liu. Zangmianyu Shiwuzhong
46-63. Beijing Yanshan Chubanshe.

126

Distribution and diffusion of the Dialectal Formatives in the
Region of Seto Inland Sea
Shinsuke Kishiei , Yukako SakoguchiiiaGraduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Tokushima UniversitybRegional Education Cooperation Center, Shikoku University

Abstract
The aim of this study is to highlight the pattern of changes in the distribution of dialects recently ina linguistic map created by means of GIS (Geographic Information System) after about 60 years of thesurvey " Linguistic Atlas of the Seto Inland Sea Vol.1 and 2" (hereinafter abbreviated as LAS)
conducted in 1974.

1. Introduction
This research is about a theme of Geolinguistics by means of GIS. Geolinguistics is one of the areas oflanguage history. It is an area of study which deals with the language change along the geographicaldistribution of the pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and so on. For example, it aims to deal with how
the language change which occurs historically, and what factors and backgrounds are involved in it
through the analysis of the geographical distribution of dialects.
In this study, we aim to reveal the language change in a designated area of the Seto Inland Sea by meansof field survey with a research method of Geolinguistics "Method of Geolinguistics" given by Takeshi
Shibata (1969).
The Geolinguistics Surveys on the Chugoku-Shikoku region, especially the Seto Inland Sea region
include Fujiwara (1974) and "Linguistic Atlas of the Seto Inland Sea Vol. 1 and 2" (LAS) in addition to
Fujiwara (1990). It will not be an exaggeration to say that the latter one being a Geolinguistics study ofJapan is a unique one in the world from a birds-eye viewpoint. Because it being a linguistic map
involving the older citizens and the young people which chart the geographical variation of dialect andalso highlights the language change between the generations. In other words, it can be said that thedifference that appears in the dialects between the two generations of young and old in "apparent time"by simultaneous representation of the geographical distribution is reflected in Linguistic Atlas.
Therefore, in this study, following the surveys by Fujiwara, we conducted a follow-up survey on the
Seto Inland Sea region to investigate about how the language change has occurred and reached thepresent state in the Seto Inland Sea region. In the following, we will find out the trend of change in the
distribution of dialects in "real time" by analyzing the change in conjunction particle indicating thecause-reason relation in an order as a part of this survey.

2. The Survey and Research to be Covered in this Presentation
In this study, the surveys of Fujiwara (1990), LAS (1974), Language Questionnaire Survey by
Correspondence on the Seto Inland Sea (2011-2014) conducted by Sakoguchi have been taken forcomparison and consideration. Accordingly, the survey conducted by Sakoguchi is referred to as"Sakoguchi’s Survey" as follows.

127

JAPANThe Japan Sea

TOKYO

OSAKA
FUKUOKA

Seto Inland Sea

Fig 1. Seto Inland Sea
2-1. Fujiwara Survey (1990)
This study is a linguistic map of the young people female aged 15 to 18) with the survey
conductedin the regions of Chugoku, Shikoku, and West Kinki. It summarizes the results of the survey
by correspondence in the 833 different sites in a time period of two years from 1933.
2-2. LASLAS is a collection of linguistic maps comprising 251 maps which have been created out of thecomparative analyses between the speech of old ladies (born in Meiji period) and girls (then junior highschool students of 1st and 2nd grade) compiled in two volumes: Vol. 1 and 2. The survey throughinterview was conducted in a total of 925 different sites (701 in the inner islands, 141 sites in coastal
areas and unidentified 83 sites) for about 5 years since 1960, and the results have been transformed intoa linguistic map.

128

Fig 2. Survey Spots of LAS
2-3. Sakoguchi’s Survey
This survey complies with the survey through correspondence and partly parallels with the survey
through the interview on the Seto Inland Sea Region. Different surveys through correspondence haveconducted in phases including first survey (October to December 2011), second survey (August to
September 2012) and third survey (April 2013 to January 2015) which is still ongoing on.
In this survey, we have procured responses from those who were native born in the Seto Inland Sea
region before 1965 in cooperation with the municipal board of education, the community hall, thefishery cooperatives etc. Accordingly, we received survey reports from the primary, secondary andtertiary survey along with the interview survey of about native-born 1,550 elderly speakers who were in
their 50ties. Thus, we have created a linguistic map out of the data of 1,512 speakers for this purpose.

129Fig 4. Survey Spots Conducted by Sakoguchi
3. Research Method

As to the organization of survey result, we have created a linguistic map and attempted to makeanalysis by using secondary mesh since the number of geographical sites are many. Although it is only arepresentation of the aggregate values, we think that making a quantitative comparison between themeshes became easy at this, because the answer format can be visualized on the map by manipulation inthis map. Specifically, the grammatical form, which we have taken up here, is a conjunction particle-kara- indicating the cause/reason relation in an order. Here, we have found the boundary of thegeographical distribution showing wide expansion and narrow retraction and also showing no changes
in the LAS. Given the above distribution, we have investigated the trend of variation that reflected in the
distribution over time by comparing the distribution of different eras.

4. Research Findings

The subject matter which has been taken up for the study is the distribution of conjunction particle
kara indicating the cause/reason relation in an order in the map no.31 of LAS. Firstly, the map no.31
about older generation in the LAS shows that ken is distributed in Hiroshima, Ehime, Kagawa, andTokushima, while ke is collectively concentrated in the Bichu Islands of Okayama Prefecture, Bigo
Islands of Hiroshima prefecture, Yamaguchi prefecture and northern Kyushu etc. In the central part ofKinki, the distribution map is mainly comprised of sakai and sakai ni in Osaka, whereas saka and sakeexist in opposition in the prefecture of Wakayama. In the city of Osaka and Hyogo prefecture, yotte andyotte ni are collectively distributed around the Awaji island. This trend seems to be almost the same as
the distribution of kara as in the sentence Ame ga futte iru kara, iku no wa yamero [I will stop going,since it is raining (Figure 33.Vol.1)] of "Grammar Atlas of Japanese Dialects". This is nationwide atlasof Japanese dialects grammar edited by the National Institute of Japanese Language and Linguistics. As
to the distribution of young generation, the trend has been seen to be similar to that of an older
generation, i.e. no big difference has appeared between the two maps. In other words, it can be said thatno changes occurred over time in the apparent time as to the conjunction particle kara.

130

Fig 5. Since it is raining(Figure 33) of the "Grammar Atlas of Japanese Dialects"
An overview of survey results, map 1 in Sakoguchi survey report shows that ken is distributed
mainly in Tokushima, Kagawa and Ehime prefectures in the Shikoku region, and the presence of it canalso be confirmed in the prefecture of Okayama and Hiroshima of the Chugoku regions.
While the survey conducted by Fujiwara (1990) in about 80 years back shows no ken to be in usage,
the distribution of ken is seen to cover the usage of keni or kini in the Sakoguchi survey. In other words,
the change that occurred in the last 80 years of a time period is now reflected as keni> ken[kini>kin]which notices the diffusion of ken. In the survey of Sakoguchi, we can see that the usage of keni or kiniis in a decrease, the trend which leads to conclude that the usage of keni or kini will be unified with kenfrom now on.

131

Fig 6. Fujiwara(1990)1
The map 2 in the LAS shows that ke is distributed in the Okayama prefecture, islands of Hiroshima
prefecture, Yamaguchi Prefecture and northern region of Kyushu, but the Sakoguchi survey shows thatthe distribution of it remains predominant in Chugoku region. The Fujiwara (1990) survey also showsthat the distribution is rich in ke . As to the ke, no big changes reflected in the distribution over time inthe last 80 years.
For the reason of the paper width, we could not incorporate a map, but the distribution on the usageof sakai (ni) can be confirmed even by comparing the results of both LAS and Fujiwara (1990) in both
the regions. In other words, for the past 80 years, it is seen that the distribution area of it did not shrink;rather it was carried out and has been used in various places.
The findings of the comparison of previous surveys show that, in general, the distribution comprised of
the formatives ke, sakai, yotte, the Seto Inland Sea area, is still persisting with a similar distribution.
With regard to ken, however, it did not appear at all in the survey of about 80 years ago, and it is now
used in the area where keni or kini would have been once used. In the phase beginning from the survey of
Fujiwara survey (1990) to LAS, we can see that keni or kini have replaced with ken, and now the keni orkini have almost disappeared causing to almost a merger with ken. The LAS survey shows that there
occurred a steady decrease in the distribution area and a decline in the usage of the dialectal forms seni,
shini, shoi etd. in various places. Given the above background, we can see a trend that various dialectal
formative seen in different phases of the LAS survey has now been swallowed by ken with the extensive
use of it in different regions.

1 Although this was published in 1990, this survey was conducted from 1933 to 1935 by Yoichi Fujiwara.

132

Fig. 7 Fujiwara (1990)2

Fig. 8 Sakoguchi’s survey from 2012 to 2015

2 This map has been changed to the color version of the map in Fig. 6 in order to compare with Fig. 8.

133

Fig. 9 The distribution of dialectal forms by Sakoguchi’s survey

5. Conclusions

The findings of comparative analysis made with the previous surveys show, in general, that theformatives such as ke, sakai(ni), yotte(ni) which comprise the distribution in the Seto Inland Sea area,
are still persisting in the same distribution area. However, with regard to the usage of ken, it did notappear at all in the survey about 80 years ago, but it is now used in the area where once keni or kini wasused. The investigation at the phase beginning from Fujiwara (1990) to LAS shows that keni or kini havechanged to ken, and formative keni or kini has almost disappeared causing to the merger with ken. In
addition, the LAS survey shows the steady decrease in usage of the dialectic forms seni, sini, shoi, in
addition to the decline of their usage in various places. Against this background, we can see a trend ofchange that various formative which are seen to be in usage during the time of the LAS survey were
swallowed by the formative ken with a steady increase in the above-mentioned region.
References:
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. 1989. Grammar Atlas of Japanese Dialects Vol 1. Zaimusho
Insatsukyoku, Tokyo. Japan.
Takeshi Shibata. 2003. Nihon Zendo no Hogen. Gengo, 32(1). Taishukan Shoten.
Yoichi Fujiwara. 1974. The Linguistic Atlas of the Seto Island Sea. Ⅰ,Ⅱ. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppan.
Yoichi Fujiwara. 1990. The Study of Linguistic Dialectology in Chugoku, Shikoku, Kinki and Kyushu. Izumi
Shoin.
Sato,T. 1990. Shodoshima to Taigan Yochi no Hougen Jisho Nenso Bunpu Zushu- A Linguistic Atlas the Seto
Island Sea no 25 Nen Go Tsuiseki Chosa, Dialectal Circle, Osaka Educational University.

Acknowledgements: This work supported by Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up. No.17H07293

134

Bhâsa Bhâbhien as a Madurese Language Dialect:
The Case of Bawean isolect on Bawean Island
Agusniar Dian Savitri
Department of Indonesian Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Abstract
The Bawean isolect debate as a language or dialect has been going on for a long time. To date, theisolect Bawean are regarded as Bawean or bhâsa Bhâbhien by its speakers. It is different for otherspeakers, especially Madurese speakers. For Madurese speakers, Bawean is part of the Madurese
language. In relation to that, this study attempts to describe bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect as the
Madurese dialect.
Data collection method used is structured interview with informant. Data analysis using
dialectometric method and bundle of isoglos. Mapping is based on lexical and phonological variations
across regions that use Madurese language in East Java. In addition, there were also mapping ofvariations of place names in Bawean Island.
The result is, first, based on the phonological correspondence between the Bawean isolect andthe Madurese language, there are areas of aspirate sound and the first syllable reduplication on
Bawean Island. These two areas of sound are characteristic of Madurese language. The first
reduplication is still maintained in East Madura dialect. Second, the lexical variation between Bawean
isolect and Madurese languages in all areas of Madurese language in East Java is at the level of dialect
differences. The isoglos line contained in fifteen semantic fields tends to group Bawean Island withMadura Island, only six isoglos maps show there is a thickening isogloss on Bawean Island. Thatmeans the lexical used in Bawean tends to be the same as the lexical Madurese language. The results
show that bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect is the same language with Madurese language, not adifferent language. Thirdly, the naming variation of places on Bawean Island shows much use of the
Madurese language lexicon. Based on these three things, it can be concluded that bhâsa Bhâbhien is adialect of the Madurese language or can be called Bawean dialect.
Keywords
bhâsa Bhâbhien, phonological correspondence, isolect status, geographical name, dialect of Madurese
1. Introduction
Bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect is an isolect spoken on Bawean Island. The island is located in thenorthern part of Gresik regency. Administratively, Bawean Island is part of Gresik Regency.

Figure 1 The Map of Bawean Island(kabgresik, 2018)

Figure 2 The Map of Bawean Island in East Java Province(DPRD Jatim, 2018)135

By its speakers, bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect is considered a different language with
Javanese and Madurese language. Therefore, Bawean isolect are called bhâsa Bhâbhien 'Bawean
language' by the people of Bawean Island. This is different from the Madurese speakers in Madura
Island. According to them, Bawean isolect or bhâsa Bhâbhien are Madurese. Sofyan (2008: 2010)
divides bhâsa Bhâbhien as a language and as a dialect of Madurese. Bhâsa Bhâbhien as a language ifviewed from sociolinguistics, while bhâsa Bhâbhien as a dialect when viewed from linguistics (Sofyan,
2008, Sofyan, 2010). According to him, Madura speakers in Madura Island consider Bawean isolectas Madurese language, while isolect in Kangean is considered as different language.
The recognition of Bawean isolect as a different language from Madurese by speakers on
Bawean Island is based on two things. First, geographically Bawean Island is far apart from Madura
Island and Java Island. In addition, administratively, Bawean Island is part of Gresik Regency which isa Java language area. This is different from the Tapal Kuda area in East Java. Although geographicallyseparated from Madura Island, the Tapal Kuda area is known as the Java-Madura region by the peopleof East Java (Savitri, 2015). Secondly, there are oral stories relating to the origin of Bawean society.
There are four stories about it. First, the Bawean people come from the Malays (Palembang, Banjar,
and Mandar) who transit on Bawean Island before entering the island of Java. Second, Bawean people
come from Madurese fishermen who stop by on Bawean Island to avoid bad weather. They finallysettled there. Third, the Bawean people came from Majapahit troops who were stranded on Bawean
Island due to bad weather. Fourth, the story of the invasion of Sultan Cakraningrat (Sultan Sumenep4th) who later occupied Bawean (Vredenberg, 1990). In relation to these two sources, it appears thatthe recognition of Bawean isolect as bhâsa Bhâbhien is based on the geographical and historicaladministrative factors of the Bawean society, not based on linguistic factors.
Ardiana's research (1997/1998) states that the language used in Bawean Island is similar to
Madurese. However the statement that the language used in Bawean is Madurese has not been
explicitly stated to date. The study of Bawean tends to support statements about the language of
Bawean or bhâsa Bhâbhien. Based on this, this study attempted to describe bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean
isolect as a dialect or a different language from Madurese. It needs to be done in order to knowwhether bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect is a different language or the same language withMadurese language, although geographically Bawean Island far apart with Madura Island.
2. Method
Data collection method used is structured interview with informant. The list of questions used is a listof Badan Bahasa questions that have been modified. Data analysis used full permutation technique andbundle of isogloss. Mapping is based on lexical and phonological variations across regions that use
Madurese language in East Java. In addition, there were also mapping of variations of place names in
Bawean Island.
3. Discussion
3.1 The Bhâsa Bhâbhien correspondence with Madurese Langugage
The study of phonological variation bhâsa Bhâbhien with Madurese language in East Java resulted ineleven correspondence between bhâsa Bhâbhien with Madurese language. Of the elevencorrespondences, the three correspondences are considered important in determining the similarity ofbhâsa Bhâbhien character with the Madurese language. the correspondence is the correspondence of
the aspirate sound, correspondence [i] with [ɛ], and the syllable correspondence. Example ofcorrespondence of aspirate sound as follows.
no
1

gloss
bahu

Table 1 Correspondence of Aspirate Consonantbhâsa Bhâbhien
Madurese[bʰɘuh], [bʰɘu][bʰɘuh], [bʰɘu]

136

2
3
4

besan
pintu

5
6
7
8
9
10

ikat kepala
bisul
ikan
horse
mudah
alu

belimbing[bʰisan][labʰǝŋ], [labǝŋ][bʰǝlimbʰiŋ][ɔɖʰǝŋ][budʰun][jʰukɔʔ][jʰǝran][ɡʰǝmpaŋ][ɡʰǝntɔŋ][bʰisan], [bisan][labǝŋ][bʰǝlimbʰiŋ], [bǝlimbʰiŋ],[bǝliŋbʰiŋ][ɔɖʰǝŋ], [ɔɖǝŋ][budʰun], [bǝbudʰun][jʰukɔʔ][jǝrǝn][ɡʰǝmpaŋ], [ɡǝmpaŋ][ɡʰǝntɔŋ]The sound of aspirate is one of the characteristics of Madurese language. In Madurese, thesounds of aspirate occur in voiced plosive sounds, namely and [b], [d], [ɖ], [j], and [ɡ]. It also
happened to bhâsa Bhâbhien. The example in Table 1 shows that bhâsa Bhâbhien has an aspirate
sound that occurs in the voiced plosive sounds [b], [d], [ɖ], [j], and [ɡ]. Of all the correspondence dataof aspirate sounds, bhâsa Bhâbhien tends to maintain the sound of the aspirate. In fact, some Madurese
subdialects of the West Madura dialect tend to vary the sound of the aspirate with nonpirate sounds, eg[ɔɖǝŋ], [ɡǝmpaŋ], dan [labǝŋ] (example in table 1).
The syllable correspondence is the correspondence between the two-syllable words with theword formed with the initial syllable reduplication so that the word has three syllables. Examples ofsuch correspondence are listed in table 2 below.
no
1
2
3
4
5

gloss
tiga
lima
perempuanlaki-lakikupu-kupu

Table 2 Syllable Correspondence
bhâsa Bhâbhien
Madurese[tatǝlɔʔ][tǝlɔʔ][lɛlɛmaʔ][lɛmaʔ][bǝbiniʔ][bǝbiniʔ], [bibiniʔ], [bǝbinɛʔ], [biniʔ], [binɛʔ][lalakɛʔ][lalakɛʔ], [lakɛʔ][kǝp:ǝr][kǝp:ǝr], [kap:ǝr], [kakap:ǝr], [ɡǝp:ǝr],[ɡǝɡǝp:ǝr]

Similar to the sound of aspirate, silabel reduplication is one of the characteristics of the
Madurese language (Pawitra, 2009: xxv). In the reduplication, the duplicated syllables are the initialsyllables or the final syllables. Based on all data, the most widespread silabel reduplication is final
syllable reduplication, such as [paykǝp:ay] ‘fan’ and [nɔŋɡunɔŋ] ‘mountain’. Early syllables
duplication tends to be maintained by the Madurese language of the eastern Madura dialect which islocated in the eastern horseshoe area, Sumenep, and some Sumenep islands (Savitri, 2015). According
to table 2, the initial syllable reduplication is also found in bhâsa Bhâbhien. Thus, the initial syllable
reduplication that exists in bhâsa Bhâbhien is the preservation of the relics by the Madurese language.
That is supported also by the spread of early syllable reduplication that tends to occur in Bawean
Island. It can be seen on the following map.

137

Figure 3 The Map of isogloss data of Aspirated Consonant Correspondence

Map on the fig 3 shows the grouping of aspirated consonant that tends to occur in eastern andBawean islands. The thickening of isoglos occurs on Bawean Island. That means the bhâsa Bhâbhien
tends to give rise to aspirated consonant, while other areas-which are the regions of Madurese-havevaried the aspirated consonant with non-aspirated consonant. Examples of variations of aspirated
consonants with nonaspirated consonants are listed in Table 1.

Figure 4 The Map of isogloss data of syllable reduplication

The same is true of map 2. The map shows an initial syllable reduplication grouping in theeastern region. The thickening of isoglos occurs on Bawean Island. That means the bhâsa Bhâbhien138tend to bring up early syllables. Other areas tend to vary it by eliminating the initial syllables so thatthe form appears two syllables. Examples of these are listed in Table 2.
The third correspondence is a correspondence [i] with [ɛ]. Vokoid [ɛ] is one of the sounds thatcharacterize Madurese language. its tends to be in the area which use the western dialect of Madura,
namely Sampang, Bangkalan, and western horseshoe area. The example of that is [kɔniŋ] ‘yellow’ ineast Madura dialect will be uttered [kɔnɛŋ] in west Madura dialect. The vocoid correspondence [i]with [ɛ] in the eastern Madura dialect with the western Madura dialect also occurs in bhâsa Bhâbhien.
That is, bhâsa Bhâbhien is part of the vocoid [ɛ] region in correspondence [i] with [ɛ].
The phonological correspondence that distinguishes bhâsa Bhâbhien and Madurese language issyllable [ŋa] with [a] and [ma] with nasal, such as [ŋabǝriʔ] ‘to give’, [maɔɖiʔ] ‘turn on’ dan[malǝɖʰuʔ] ‘explode’. Silabel [ŋa] corresponds to [a] in Madurese. Thus, if there is [ŋalɛrɛʔ] 'glancing'and [ŋadulǝŋ] 'feeding' in bhâsa Bhâbhien, the form will vary with [alɛrɛʔ] and [adulǝŋ] in Madurese.
Silabel [ma] in bhâsa Bhâbhien corresponds to nasal. That means, if there is [maɔɖiʔ] ‘turn on’ inbhâsa Bhâbhien, the form will vary with [ŋɔɖiʔi] in Madurese. Although those two distinguish bhâsa
Bhâbhien with the Madurese language, the two forms—syllable [a] and [ma]—is actually a prefix in
Madurese (Pawitra, 2009: xxvi). Referring to the principle of geographical diffusion (Chambers andTrudgill, 2004), the two etyma are a relics of Madurese language. Thus, the existence of the two etima
actually reinforces the phonological similarity between bhâsa Bhâbhien and Madurese.
3.2 Status of Bhâsa Bhâbhien with Madurese Language
Determination of bhâsa Bhâbhien status was done by counting lexical variation with full permutation
technique at two points on Bawean Island, namely Sangkapura and Tambak. These two points are
permutated with all points using Madurese language. The result is Isolect in Sangkapura and Tambak
is a Madurese language dialect. Thus, bhâsa Bhâbhien is a Madurese language. Here is a map of the
permutation.

Figure 5 Permutation at Observation Point 2 (TP 2)

In figure 5 we can see that the biggest difference between observation point 2 (Sangkapura) and otherobservation points in East Java is dialect difference. It shows that bhâsa Bhâbhien in Sangkapura
Bawean is a dialect of the Madurese language.

139

Figure 6 Permutation at Observation Point 3 (TP 3)

Similar to figure 5, in figure 6 we can see that the biggest difference between observation point 3(Tambak) and other observation points in East Java is dialect difference. It shows that bhâsa Bhâbhien
in Tambak Bawean is a dialect of the Madurese language.
The lexical variations between bhâsa Bhâbhien and Madurese tend to occur in the semantic
fields of body parts; pronouns and greetings; plants and trees; animals; character, adjective, colour;
motion and work. Isoglos bundles on these six semantic fields show a very noticeable thickening on
Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2). Here is a map of the isoglos.

140

Figure 7 The Map of Isogloss Data For Parts of The Body

Figure 7 (semantic fields of body and semantic fields of pronouns and greetings) show thickening on
Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2). That means there are many lexical variations on Bawean Island that are
different from other TP in the two semantic fields. Examples of such variations are [rɔmpɔʔ] ‘stacked
teeth’, in other regions [sɔlɛh] and [sɔŋil], [ɔlɔ] ‘head’ in other areas [cɛʈ:ak].

Figure 8 The Map of Isogloss Data For ponouns and Greetings

141

Figure 8 show thickening on Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2). That means there are many lexical
variations on Bawean Island that are different from other TP in the two semantic fields. Examples ofsuch variations are [ɛsɔn] ‘I’ in other areas [ǝŋkɔʔ] and [sɛŋkɔʔ].

Figure 9 The Map of Isogloss Data For Plants, Yard, and Trees

Figure 9 show thickening on Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2). That means there are many lexical
variations on Bawean Island that are different from other TP in the two semantic fields. Examples ofsuch variations are [ɔrɛ] ‘bamboo’ in other areas [prɛŋ] and [pǝr:ɛŋ], [bǝŋɛ] ‘pandanus’ in other areas[panɖʰǝn] and [panɖǝn].

Figure 10 The Map of Isogloss Data For Plants, Yard, and Trees

142

Figure 10, the thickening on Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2) means there are many lexical
variations on Bawean Island that are different from other TP in the two semantic fields. Examples ofsuch variations are [bukal] ‘apes’ in other areas [mɔʈak], [ŋɔʈak], and [kǝʈ:aŋ].

Figure 11 The Map of Isogloss Data For Character, Adjectives, and Color

Figure 11, the thickening on Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2) means there are many lexical
variations on Bawean Island that are different from other TP in that semantic fields. Examples of suchvariations [ijo] ‘green’ in other areas [biruh]. That variation is inovation in Bawean because there is
not lexical of [ijo] in Madurese. In that language, ‘green’ and ‘blue’ have a same lexical, [biruh].

Figure 12 The Map of Isogloss Data For Motion and Work

143

Figure 12 shows thickening on Bawean Island (TP 1 and 2). That means there are many lexical
variations on Bawean Island that are different from other TP in the two semantic fields. Examples ofsuch variations [ɳɛrɔp], [ŋɛrɔʔ] ‘breathe’ in other regions [ɳǝrɡuʔ], [ɳǝrŋʊt] ‘washes’ in other areas[sasas:ah], [ɳas:ah]; [katɔwɛ] and [ŋɔɖɛi] ‘call’ in other areas [ŋɔlɔʔ], [ɳǝl:ɔk].
Based on the isoglos bundle map of the six semantic fields, it appears that lexical variations
between Bawean Island and other areas are in terms of geographical conditions. Not all plants andanimals that exist on the island of Java and Madura is on the island of Bawean, and vice versa. The
same is true of the semantic field of motion and work. Madurese ethnic in Java live in mountainous
areas or coastal areas. It is different from Bawean society. Most of them work as sailors or work
abroad (as TKI). Hence, there is a lexicon in the semantic field of motion and work which are owned
Madurese language on the islands of Java and Madura but not possessed by bhâsa Bhâbhien, nor viceversa.
Although there is a lexical variation between bhâsa Bhâbhien with Madurese language whichtends to occur in six semantic fields, the lexical variation does not make bhâsa Bhâbhien as a distinct
language with Madurese language. It is based on a full permutation calculation that results in a 59%
percentage. This percentage shows variation of bhâsa Bhâbhien with the Madurese language at the
dialect level. In addition, of the 1111 gloss which asked on informants, which is a lexical variation of
only 401 gloss. There are 527 gloss that vary phonologically, 25 gloss has no etyma, 168 glos have thesame etyma. Thus it can be concluded that the variation between bhâsa Bhâbhien with Madura
language tends to be phonological variation. It shows that bhâsa Bhâbhien tends to use the same
lexical as Madurese language. Which means, bhâsa Bhâbhien or Bawean isolect is Madurese language.
3.3 The use of Madura lexicon in geographical naming on Bawean Island
The phonological and lexical variations that have been described have been sufficient to prove bhâsa
Bhâbhien as the language of Madura. But to reinforce it, will also be seen geographical naming on
Bawean Island. This needs to be done because Madurese speakers tend to use Madurese language in
geographic naming, although administratively the geographical name uses other languages. An
example of this is the mention of villages and towns in the Tapal Kuda area. In that area, a village thatis administratively named Sumberingin will be called [sɔmbʰǝrriŋin] by Madurese speakers. Similarly
the city of Situbondo will be called [patɔʔan] by Madurese speakers. It happens because the Madurese
speakers use their language for the geographical naming. Thus, it should be seen whether ingeographical naming on Bawean Island, speakers on Bawean Island using Madurese or Bawean
lexical.
Geographical naming is seen from two things, namely the name of the village and the name ofthe place. Place name is the name of the place that formed from nature such as mountains, lakes, rivers,
which is considered typical in Bawean Island. Based on these two things, three things are generated.
First, there is a place name that uses Madurese language. The lexical which used is a Madurese lexicalor has a Madurese language structure. Secondly, there is a place name that uses Java language. The
lexical which used is a javanese lexical. Third, there is a place name that uses bhâsa Bhâbhien. The
lexical used in naming the place is not a lexical of Madurese or Javanese. These three things areillustrated in the following map.

144

Figure 13 The Map of Distribution of village name and places names variation in Bawean Island

Of the two maps, it appears that the most extensive distribution is the name of the village andthe name of the place that uses Madurese language. Examples of such names are the village of Dâun[ɖɘʊn], the village of Bululanjhâng [bululaɳjʰɘŋ].
Based on the geographical naming it can be seen that the speakers bhâsa Bhâbhien tend to use
lexical of Madurese language in geographical naming. That means the language of Madura is indeed
used by speakers on Bawean Island. It supports the previous result which states that bhâsa Bhâbhien isa dialect of the Madurese language.

4. Conclusion
the correspondence of the aspirated consonant, correspondence [i] with [ɛ], and the initial syllable
correspondence show that bhâsa Bhâbhien is not only the area of the aspirated consonant, the initialsyllables, and the vokoid [ɛ], but the relics area of the sounds of Madurese language. The result of thelexical permutation also shows that bhâsa Bhâbhien differs dialect with the language of Madura. Bothare also supported by naming villages and places on Bawean Island that tend to use Madurese
language. Thus, it can be concluded that bhâsa Bhâbhien is the same language as Madurese language.
It can also be said that bhâsa Bhâbhien is a dialect of the Madurese language or can be called a dialectof Bhâbhien or Bawean dialect.
References
Adrian Pawitra. Kamus Lengkap Bahasa Madura. Jakarta: Dian Rakyat, 2008.
Ardiana, Leo Idra, dkk. 1997/1998. “Bahasa yang digunakan di Pulau Bawean”. Hasil Penelitian.
Surabaya: Proyek Pembinaan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah, Provinsi Jawa timur.
Chambers, J.K. dan Trudgill, P. 2004. Dialectology. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Jawa Timur (DPRD Jatim). 2018. “Peta Daerah
Pemilihan”. http://dprd.jatimprov.go.id/dapil/id/9/. Diakses 12 April 2018.
Savitri, Agusniar Dian. 2015. “Variasi Fonologis Bahasa Madura di Seluruh Jawa Timur. disertasi.
Universitas Indonesia
Sofyan, Akhmad. 2008 (a). Variasi, Keunikan, dan Penggunaan Bahasa Madura. Sidoarjo: BBJT
Pusat Bahasa Depdiknas.

145

Sofyan, Akhmad. 2010. “Fonologi Bahasa Madura”. Jurnal Humaniora. No. 2 Juni 2010, Volume 22,
p. 207—218.
Vredenberg, Jacob. 1990. Bawean dan Islam. Jakarta: INIS

146

JAVANESE LANGUAGE IN CIREBON:
THE LANGUAGE AT THE BORDERLINE
Supriatnoko

Department of Accounting
State Polytechnic of Jakarta

supriatnoko@gmail.com
ABSTRACTJavanese Language in Cirebon exists at the borderline between Province of Central Java and Provinceof West Java, and grows in Sundanese Language environment. The speakers like to call the language
they use as Cerbon Language or Crebon Language. Cerbon Language brings up the problem ingeolinguistics. The problem is whether Cerbon Language as one dialect of Javanese Language shows
variations because of the influence of Sundanese Language, It happens because according to thegeographic, villages where the speakers of Cerbon Language live is adjacent to the villages where thespeakers of Sundanese Language live on. The research uses qualitative and quantitative approach.
Village is treated as a research unit. 55 villages are treated as the sample by using criterion-based
selection or purposive sample technique. Informans are treated as sources of data. Data are collected byusing questionnaire which contains list of questions in it, obtained through participative observation
method, face-to-face conversation and recording techniques. Data are analysed by isogloss anddialectometry methods, using triangular interregional and polygones de Thiessen techniques. The resultof analysis is presented descriptively. The research found as follows: From 558 maps, it is discovered
209 maps of lexical variations and 349 maps of phonological variations. It is also discovered 3 groupsof Cerbon Language speakers, that is, the first group pronounces the open vocal phoneme /a/ as [a]. It
is possibly influenced by Sundanese Language, the second group tends to pronounce the open vocal
phoneme /a/ as [ɔ] like Javanese pronunciation, and the third group tends to pronounce the open vocal
phoneme /a/ as [a], and [ɔ]. The achieving of lexical variations—according to Guiter (1973)—
is ”Different Speech”, and the achieving of phonological variations is ”Different Subdialect”. Cerbon
Language has different grammatical vocabulary from Javanese Language standard. Thus, speakers ofCerbon Language are difficult to be understood by the other speakers of Javanese Language, in the lightof the frequency using grammatical vocabulary tends to be high from all dialects of Javanese Language,
so it can be declared that gramatical vocabulary at Cerbon Language indicates its speakers identity in
Cirebon.
Key words: Cerbon Language, lexical variation, phonological variation, grammatical vocabulary,
speakers identity

1. Introduction
Cirebon (municipality and regency) is located at the border of Province of West Java with Provinceof Central Java. It belongs to Province of West Java region. Cirebon as the part of Province of WestJava borders on Kuningan Regency, Majalengka Regency, and Indramayu Regency (see figure 1). The
inhabitant of Kuningan Regency and Majalengka Regency speaks Sundanese Language and the
inhabitant of Indramayu Regency, some speak Javanese, a few speak Sundanese Language.
The inhabitants of Cirebon can be divided into two speakers, namely the inhabitant who speaks
Sundanese and the inhabitant who speaks Javanese. Between the two speakers, it can be found the
speakers who are able to speak Sundanese and Javanese. Both of the two speakers claim that they are
the Cirebon people.
Based on the information from the informers, the origin inhabitant of Cirebon is Sundanese people.
Then they became the parts of Padjadjaran Empire. They spoke Sundanese Language. Padjadjaran
Empire treated Sundanese Language as the official language of the empire. “Batutulis Inscription” in147

Bogor and “Kawali Inscription” in North Ciamis, and “Kebantenan Inscription” in Bekasi, found in the
16 century, became the evidences that Sundanese Language used as the official language of the empire(see Ekajati, 2005²: 87-88; Hardjasaputra and Haris, 2011: 15-17).
At the 14 century, Javanese Language went into Cirebon. It was taken by the fishermen who camefrom Central and East Java and maintained a permanent residence at Muara Jati Port and at along theseashore near the port. Muara Jati was the famous port in Cirebon at that time (Supriatnoko, 2015:3). It
had ever become the international port, as the port of call for international trade stripe and called “silkstripe trading” (Atja, 1986:30; see Adeng, etal, 1998:49; Buchori and Kuswiah, 2001: 19; Casta andTaruna, 2008: 8). Because Cirebon has strategic area between Javanese land and Sundanese land,
Cirebon acted as a bridge for Javanese culture and Sundanese culture (Zuhdi, 1996: 4).
The interaction and communication between Sundanese people and Javanese people firstly in
trading encourage the two ethnics to learn each language and then they use both languages as a meansof communication in their social lives. Nowadays, the speakers of Javanese language in Cirebon callthe language they use as Cerbon Language or Crebon Language. The interaction between the two
languages enables the language contact, language exchange and language absorption happened. From
this case, Cerbon Language brings up the problem in geolinguistics: Does it show the language
variations? Do the speakers of Cerbon Language produce hybrid and local lexical? Can it include “nodifferent language” as Seguy’s band scale (1973).

Figure 1. Cirebon on the Map exists at the borderline
2. Methodology
Cirebon (Municipality and Regency) is the location of the research (see figure 2). The research uses
qualitative and quantitative approach. Village is treated as a research unit. From 446 villages, it isdecided 55 villages are treated as the sample of observation center/point (OP) by using criterion-based
selection or purposive sample technique. Informers are treated as sources of data. The list of 55 villagesof the OP (see figure 3). The numbering system starts from Guwa Lor Village and ends at Tawangsari
Village (see Figure 4). Three persons were decided as the informers from each village. They had tofulfil the requirements stated before. Data are collected by using questionnaire which contains list ofquestions in it, obtained through participative observation method, face-to-face conversation and148

recording techniques. Data are analysed by isogloss and dialectometry methods, using triangularinterregional and polygones de Thiessen techniques. The result of analysis is presented descriptively.

3. Previous literature
The entire previous works on dialectology or geolinguistics in Cirebon analyze the primary topics
about dialectology of Sundanese Language, such as Ayatrohaedi (1978), Maulina (2008), Kartika, etal
(2007), Mahsun, etal (2008), Ruliah, etal (2008) did.
The only work of dialectology on Cerbon Language is Pemetaan Basa Cerbon: Distribusi Variasi
Bahasa dan Penetapan Status (Cerbon Language Mapping: Distribution of Language Variations andDetermining Status) by Supriatnoko (dissertation) in 2015. Up to now, there has not been found thedialectology research about Cerbon Language.

4. Language Variations
Cerbon Language (Javanese Language used in Cirebon) brings out variations both in phonology
and in lexical. It happened since it is in a place which far from the land of its birth: Yogyakarta andSurakarta. The native speakers of Javanese Language claimed that Yogyakarta and Surakarta are thecenter of Javanese Language. Javanese Language used in the two cities recognizes as the standard
language for all the speakers. The futher the places from the center the bigger the variations appear, as
the weave theory ever stated.
From the other side, it can be said that the propinquity with Sundanese Language makes the use ofJavanese Language in Cirebon adopt the sounds and the lexical from Sundanese Language. So, theSundanese words mix up with the Javanese words in their speech. Thus, speakers of Cerbon Language
are difficult to be understood by the other speakers of Javanese Language, in the light of the frequency
using grammatical vocabulary tends to be high from other dialects of Javanese Language.

4.1 Phonological Variations
From 558 maps used as instrument to get the data in 55 observation points (OP), there are 349 maps
phonological variations, included swadesh basic vocabulary, part of body vocabulary, system of kinshipvocabulary, yard and timber vocabulary, animal vocabulary, action and activity vocabulary, function
word vocabulary. The fact finding of phonological variations from Sundanese Language and from
Javanese Language as follows.
Table 1. The fact finding of phonological variations from Sundanese Language
NO
1
2

PREVIOUS
VOCABULARY
upah [upah]itek [itək]

3
4

tonggar [tɔꬼgar]
suuk [suuk]

5

sampeu [sampə]6

ngincer [ꬼincər]

789pegat [pəgat]
dakom [dakɔm]
sepak [sɛpak]

PHONOLOGICAL VARIATIONSENGLISHupa [upa], upai [upai], pai [pai], pei [pɛi]itek-itek [itək-itək], tetek [tətək], tetekan[tətəkan], teken [təkən]
songgar [sɔꬼgar], sanggar [saꬼgar]
kacang suuk [kacaꬼ sʊʊk], kacang suwuk[kacaꬼ sʊwʊk]
sampu [sampu], campu [campu], capu
[capu], kacapu [kacapu]
ngicer [ꬼicər], nginyer [ꬼiñər], kincer[kincər], kicer [kicər], kiyer [kiyər], nyiyer[ñiyər]pegot [pəgɔt], cegot [cəgɔt]
ndakom [ndakɔm]nyepak [ñɛpak]give, pay
stick, walking stick149

bucktoothedpeanutcassavaclose one eyebreak offlying flat,kick with the heel or side of
the foot10

sabab [sabab]

sebab [səbab], sebabe [səbabɛ]

becauseTable 2. The fact finding of phonological variations from Javanese Language
NO
1
2

PREVIOUS
VOCABULARY
Mlumah [mlumah]
nglangi [ꬼlaꬼi]

3
4sira [sira]tiba [tiba]

5
6

dawa [dawa]
cemeng [cəmɛꬼ]

7

trenggiling [trəꬼgiliꬼ]89piye [piyɛ], pribe[pribɛ], priben[pribɛn]ngincer [ꬼincər]10

sendhe [sɛndɛ]PHONOLOGICAL VARIATIONSENGLISH

mluma [mlʊma], mlumo [mlʊmɔ]ngelangi [ꬼəlaꬼi], ngilangi [ꬼilaꬼi],nglangen [ꬼlaꬼɛn]siro [sirɔ], ira [ira]tibo [tibɔ], tibel [tibɛl], tigel [tigɛl], tegel[tɛgɛl], rigel [rigɛl], regel [rɛgɛl], ribel[ribɛl], rebel [rɛbɛl]dawo[dawɔ], dao [daɔ]emeng [əmɛꬼ], cemeng [cɛmɛꬼ], cemong[cɛmɔꬼ], cemeng [cəmɛꬼ]
tenggiling[təꬼgiliꬼ],
trenggalung[trəꬼgalʊꬼ], tenggalung [təꬼgalʊꬼ]preben [prɛbɛn], prijen [prijɛn], kepriben[kəpribɛn]lie onswim

ngicer [ꬼicər], nginyer [ꬼiñər], kincer[kincər], kicer [kicər], kiyer [kiyər], nyiyer[ñiyər]sender [sɛndɛr], sendeh [sɛndɛh], lende[lɛndɛ], lendeh [lɛndɛh], slendeh [slɛndɛh],nyender [ñɛndɛr], nyende [ñɛndɛ]close one eye

you
fall
long
kittencivet cathowlean on

4.2 Lexical Variations
From 558 maps used as instrument to get the data in 55 observation points (OP), it has been
discovered 209 maps lexical variations, included swadesh basic vocabulary, part of body vocabulary,system of kinship vocabulary, yard and timber vocabulary, animal vocabulary, action and activity
vocabulary, function word vocabulary. The fact finding of lexical variations are hybrid and local lexicalof Cerbon Language.

4.2.1 Hybrid
From 558 words used as instrument to get the data in 55 observation points (OP), it has been
discovered hybrid words. Kridalaksana (2008: 82) said that hybrid is the complex word which each partof word consturcted from different language. For example the hybrid prasejarah, constructed from pra
from Sanskrit and sejarah from Arabic. According to Lauder (2007: 25), hybrid is an intermediarylanguage to the speakers used as self expression and as a sign of self identity.
Here are some hybrid found in Cerbon Language.
Table 3. Some Hybird Found in Cerbon LanguageNO

HYBRID1

kolot lanang [kɔlɔtlanaꬼ]
kolot wadon [kɔlɔt
wadɔn]
bibi tuwa [bibi tuwa]

2
3

CONSTRUCTED FROMSUNDANESE WORD JAVANESE WORD
kolot [kɔlɔt]
lanang [lanaꬼ]

grand father

kolot [kɔlɔt]

wadon [wadɔn]grand mather

bibi [bibi]

tuwa [tuwa]

aunty

150

ENGLISH4pete selong [pətɛ selɔꬼ]selong [selɔꬼ]pete [pətɛ]

5iwak kancra [iwakkancra]manuk dengan [manʊkdɛꬼan]
angger pisan [aꬼgər
pisan]
ula cabe [ula cabɛ]
bonteng timun [bɔntɛꬼ
timʊn]
ula kadut [ula kadʊt]kancra [kancra]

iwak [iwak]

tree planted to shadecoffee or other plants
goldfishdengan [dɛꬼan]

manuk [manʊk]owlpisan [pisan]angger [aꬼgər]

often

cabe [cabɛ]timun [timʊn]ula [ula]bonteng [bɔntɛꬼ]

pythoncucumberkadut [kadʊt]ula [ula]

python678
9
10

4.2.2 Local Lexical of Cerbon Language
Cerbon Language quotes/takes of words from Sundanese Language as it lives and grows in
Sundanese Language environment. Ayatrohaedi (1985: 242) said that lexical or vocabularies quoted
from other language, generally related to:
1. Things that have not been ever known by local inhabitant at the previous time.
2. Things that have been ever known before, but the symbol from other language then accepted, either
accepted as a substitute symbol which has been available or it has been known collectively.
3. But in the case of Cerbon Language, speakers of Cerbon Language not only quote the words fromother language but also create local lexical.
Here are some local lexical created in Cerbon Language.
Table 4. Some Local Lexical of Cerbon Language
NO

SUNDANESE

JAVANESEENGLISH

1
2
3
4

LOCAL
CERBONLEXICAL
glenter [glentɛr]lagan [lagan]bagel [bagəl]gopekna [gɔpékna]goler [gɔlɛr]
jeung [jöꬼ]
baledog [balɛdɔg]cekel [cəkəl]lie onand, withthrow
take hold of

5

ungker [uꬼkər]

cacaka [cacaka]

6
7
8
9
10

blesak [blesak]
duwang [duwaꬼ]dada walang [dada walaꬼ]ngotrek [ꬼɔtrék]
beli [bəli], bli [bli]goreng [gɔrɛꬼ]talaga [talaga]iga [iga]
ninun [ninun]
teu [tö], henteu[həntö]mlumah [mlumah]
karo [karɔ]mbalang [mbalaꬼ]nyekel [ñəkəl], cekel[cəkəl]kepompong[kəpɔmpɔꬼ]

elek [élé’], ala [ala]tlaga [tlaga]iga [iga]
nenun [nənʊn]ora [ɔra]cocoon

ugly
lake
flank
weave
no

5. Three Group of Cerbon Language Speakers
From 55 observation points (OP) , it has been discovered 3 group of Cerbon Language speakers:
1. The group who pronounces (diucapkan) open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound[a]. The group was found in 39 OP, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon, borders on Majalengka
Regency, in South of Cirebon, borders on Kuningan Regency, and in Southeast of Cirebon, borders
on Kuningan Regency and Brebes Regency Central Java.
2. The group who pronounces open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound [ɔ]. The group
was found in 8 OP, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon, borders on Majalengka Regency andIndramayu Regency.

151

3. The group who pronounces open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound [a] and [ɔ],used by turns. The group was found in 8 OP, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon, borders on
Majalengka Regency (see figure 5).
4. Although each group has different way to pronounce open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word,
the three of group have the same rule in writing phoneme /a/ as (a) not (o).
From 446 villages available in Cirebon it has been discovered 3 group of Cerbon Language
speakers:
1. The group who pronounces open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound [a]. The group
was found in 335 villages, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon, borders on Majalengka Regency, inSouth of Cirebon, borders on Kuningan Regency, and in Southeast of Cirebon.
2. The group who pronounces open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound [ɔ]. The group
was found in 64 villages, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon.
3. The group who pronounces open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word by the sound [a] and [ɔ],used by turns. The group was found in 47 villages, spreaded in Northwest of Cirebon (see figure 6).

6. Dialectometry Result
The fact findings shown language variations (phonological variations and lexical variations), hybrid,
local lexical, and group of speakers. Based on the dialectometric calculation for all of lexical, Cerbon
Language gets the result of 22.42%. So it is considered in the Guiter criteria (1973) that Cerbon
Language is ”Different Speech” (beda wicara) from Javanese Language (see Map 1).
Based on the dialectometric calculation for all of phonology, Cerbon Language gets the result of 9.1%.
So it is considered in the Guiter criteria (1973) that Cerbon Language is ”Different Subdialect” (beda
subdialek) from Javanese Language (see Map 2).
7. Conclusion
Cerbon Language as the language in the borderline tends to be difficult to understand by the
speakers from other dialects of Javanese Language since it borrows the Sundanese words in their speech.
In this case, Sundanese Language is a foreign language which has becomes the biggest contributor for
Cerbon Language.
Cerbon Language produces phonological and lexical variations. The feature of phonologicalvariations is about vocabulary sound exchange and open vocal phoneme /a/ at the final of word
pronounced as [a], [ɔ], and as [a], [ɔ] by turns. As the result, From 55 observation points (OP), it has
been discovered 3 group of Cerbon Language speakers.
Speakers who pronounce /a/ as [a] spreads in 39 OP. All OP villages are adjacent to the villages
where the speakers of Sundanese Language live on. So their influence is high contribution especially inthe final sound of word which they produce the sound [ɔ] become [a]. For example: sila [silɔ] becomes[sila].
The main feature of lexical variations is about hybrid word and local vocabulary which they
produce for the same meaning for the words found in both languages: Sundanese and Javanese.
Based on the issoglos and dialectometric calculation for phonology, Cerbon Language isconsidered to”Different Subdialect” and for lexical is considered to”Different Speech”.

Acknowlegement
I wish to acknowledge my special honor to the Committees of The 4th International Conference on Asian
Geolinguistics (ICAG-4) who have given me an opportunity to present my paper in this prestigious
event.

152

References
Adeng, dkk. 1998. Kota Dagang Cirebon sebagai Bandar Jalur Sutera. Jakarta: Depdikbud RI.
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 1990. Sosiologi Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2003. Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian
Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Ayatrohaedi. 1985. Bahasa Sunda di daerah Cirebon. Indonesian Linguistics Development Project (ILDEP). Ed.
W.A.L. Stokhof. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Ayatrohaedi. 2002. Pedoman Penelitian Dialektologi. Jakarta: Pusat bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional RI.
Bochari, M. Sanggupri dan Wiwi Kuswiah. 2001. Sejarah Kerajaan Tradisional Cirebon. Jakarta: Depdiknas RI.
Bynon, Robert.
1977. Recherches de Lexicologie. Paris: Editions Fernand Nathan.
Casta dan Taruna. 2008. Batik Cirebon: Sebuah Pengantar Apresiasi, Motif, dan Makna Simboliknya. Cirebon:
Badan Komunikasi, Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata Kabupaten Cirebon.
Chambers, J.K. dan Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge (Eng.); New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Dubois, Jean, dkk. 1973. Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris: Larousse.
Ekadjati, Edi S. 2005¹. Kebudayaan Sunda: Suatu Pendekatan SejarahJilid 1. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Ekadjati, Edi S. 2005². Kebudayaan Sunda: Zaman Pajajaran Jilid 2. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
Fasol, Ralph dan Jeff Connor-Linton. 2006. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Goebl, Hans. 1981. “Elements d’Analyse Dialectometrique: Avec application a l’Atlas
Linguistiques de l’Italie du Sud”, Revue de Linguistique Romanes. Volume 45: 349—420.
Strasbourg: Societe de Linguistique Romane et Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Guiraud, Pierre. 1978. “Verification de loi Linguistique par Correlation”, Hommage a la Memoirede Pierre Gardette. Strasbourg: La Societe de Linguistique Romane.
Guiter, Henri. 1973. “Atlas et Frontiere Linguistique”. In Les Dialectes Romans de France, 61—109. Paris: Centre
Nasional de la Recherche Scientifique.
Hardjasaputra, A. Sobana dan Tawalinuddin Haris (eds). 2011. Cirebon dalam Lima Zaman (Abad ke-15 hingga
Pertengahan Abad ke-20). Bandung: Dinas Pariwisata dan Kebudayaan Provinsi Jawa Barat.
Kartika, dkk. 2007. Penelitian Kekerabatan dan Pemetaan Bahasa-bahasa di Wilayah Jawa Barat dan Banten.
Bandung: Balai Bahasa Bandung.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 2008. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Lauder, Multamia RMT. 1993. Pemetaan dan Distribusi Bahasa-bahasa di Tangerang. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Lauder, Multamia RMT. 2007. Sekilas Mengenai Pemetaan Bahasa. Jakarta: Akbar Media Eka Sarana.
Lembaga Basa dan Sastra Sunda. 1985. Kamus Umum Basa Sunda. Bandung: Penerbit Tarate.
Mahsun. 2007. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategi, Metode, dan Tekniknya. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo
Persada.
Mahsun, Inyo Yos Fernandez, Kisyani Laksono, Multamia RMT Lauder, dan Nadra. 2008. Bahasa dan Peta
Bahasa di Indonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

153

Maulina, Fajri. 2008. Kajian Dialektologi di Kecamatan Talun Kabupaten Cirebon. Skripsi. Jakarta: FBS
Universitas Negeri Jakarta.
Meillet, Antoine. 1967. The Comparative Methods of Historical Linguistics. Paris: Minuit.
Nauton, Pierre. 1963. Atlas Linguistique et Ethnographique du Massif-Central. Volume IV.
Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2007. Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Edisi Ketiga. Jakarta:
Balai Pustaka.
Revier, Xavier. 1975. Le discours sur les isolats Pyereens et la situation linguistique du Pays de Bareges. HPG:
420—428.
Sasangka, Sry Satriya Tjatur Wisnu. 2011. Bunyi-bunyi Distingtif Bahasa Jawa. Yogyakarta : Elmatera
Publishing.
Seguy, Jean. 1971. "La Relation entre la Distance Spatiale et la Distance Lexicale", Revue de Linguistique Romane.
Paris: societe Linguistique Romane. Volume 35:335—337.
Seguy, Jean. 1973. La Dialectométrie dans l’Atlas Linguistique de la Gascogne. In Revue de Linguistique Romane,
Volume 37 : 1-24. Paris: Société Linguistique Romane.
Sudaryanto. 1988. Metode Linguistik. Bagian Kedua. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press.
Supriatnoko. 2015. Pemetaan Basa Cerbon: Distribusi Variasi Bahasa dan Penetapan Status. Dissertation. Depok:
Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia.
Sutopo, H.B. 2006. Metodologi penelitian Kualitatif: Dasar teori dan terapannya dalam penelitian. Surakarta:
Penerbit Universitas Sebelas Maret.
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. Sosiolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 2nd Edition. Harmondsworth:Penguin Books Ltd.
Zuhdi, Susanto (Penyunting). 1996. Cirebon sebagai Bandar Jalur Sutra: Kumpulan Makalah Diskusi Ilmiah.
Jakarta: Depdikbud RI.

154

Figure 2. Municipality and Regency of Cirebon

Figure 3. Villages that Become Observation Point

155

Figure 4. The Numbering System of Observation Point

Figure 5. Geography Distribution of Variation of Open Vokal Phonemes /a/ at final from 55 villages

156

Figure 6. Geography Distribution of Variation of Open Vokal Phonemes /a/ at final from 446 villages

157

Map 1. Leksikal as a whole158

Map 2. Phonology as a whole159

Geographical Language Variation in Pringsewu Regency of Lampung
Province
Suprayogi

Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
E-mail: suprayogi@teknokrat.ac.id.

Abstract
Pringsewu is a regency in Lampung where many languages are widely spoken. This dialectology study was
aimed at investigating language variation in Pringsewu regency, mapping the variation distribution andclassifying the variation into language, dialects, subdialects and speech. There were 350 words consisting of
Swadesh list and lexical field of body parts and activities used as the instrument in this study. This study
revealed that there were four main languages in Pringsewu namely Lampung, Javanese, Sundanese and Semendo.
The lexical varieties can be classified in 14 groups of etyma. Furthermore, the result of dialectometry calculation
revealed that there were a lot of areas categorized as “different in dialect”, whereas they were actually “different
in language”. This condition was due to the existence of language contact, and shared features of Proto
Austronesian dan Proto West-Malayo Polynesian.
Keywords: dialectology, language variation, language mapping, Pringsewu

1. Introduction
Pringsewu regency in Lampung province, a home for 383,101 residents in 2015, was officiallyfounded in 2009 (BPS Pringsewu, 2015). Pringsewu was once a small village named “Margakaya”
which has been inhabitted by people of Lampung Pubian in since 1738. In 1925, people from Javaisland migrated to this area under Dutch’s ethiesche politiek of transmigration (Arsip Daerah
Kabupaten Pringsewu, 2015). The Javanese people started to make living in this area by converting
bamboo forest into housing and farming area. From this, “Pringsewu” was named after the
Margakaya’s past nature condition where there were a lots of bamboo trees. In Javanese, “Pringsewu”
means thousand bamboos.
People from Java and Southern Sumatera migrated to this area voluntarily since the first
Javanese transmigration. Some of them were invited by the family member who came earlier
convincing that the life in this area could be further better. Some others came to the area as seasonallabors to harvest coffee; in fact, many didn’t want to come back, so they decided to live there. As theresult, this area, that was just a small village surrounded by forest, has changed to be residential area.
These migrants are believed to bring their cultures such as languages and traditions to this new place.
However, what languages they speak, where these languages are spoken remain unclear. Therefore,
the dialectology study is necessary to investigate the language situation in Pringsewu. Dialectology
according to Lauder (2007) is a study of spatial or geographical variation as opposed tosociolinguistics that focuses on the study of social variation. This study attempted to reveal the
distribution of lexical variations and the status of the variations, whether the variations are different inlanguage, dialect, sub dialect or speech.
There have been some researches on dialectology investigating language variation in
Lampung provinces. There are Lampung language map by Lembaga Bahasa Nasional (1972),
Lampung dialect division and distribution by Kurniawati (2007) and Javanese variation in Lampung
Province by Zawarnis (2009). Meanwhile, the last two researches only selected few observation
locations in Pringsewu; thus, they have not represented the whole language situation in the regency.

160

2. Research Method
This study was conducted in Pringsewu regency of Lampung province. Per 2015, this regency
consists of 131 adminisrative villages (BPS Pringsewu, 2015). There were 33 administrative villages
or 25% of them selected as observation location (OL). There selection considered the areas withhomogenous language, areas established earlier (old villages), areas mostly speaking non-Lampung
language, and areas selected for the sake of even distribution. Those villages are Desa Pamenang (OL23), Desa Candiretno (OL 24), Desa Sukawangi (OL 29), Desa Pujiharjo (OL 25), Desa Fajarbaru (OL26), Desa Madaraya (OL 32), Desa Margosari (31), Desa Gunungraya (OL 30), Desa Way Kunyir OL33), Desa Giri Tunggal (28), Desa Margakaya (9), Desa Waluyojati (OL 13), Desa Bumi Arum (OL12), Desa Selapan (OL 16), Desa Pardasuka Timur (OL 15), Desa Kedaung (OL 16), Desa Pardasuka(OL 14), Desa Kresnomulyo (OL 18), Desa Ambarawa (OL 8), Desa Sinar Baru (OL 19), Desa
Pandansari (OL 5), Desa Keputran (OL 10), Desa Siliwangi (OL 20), Desa Srikaton (OL 3), Desa
Sinarwaya (OL 11), Desa Totokerto (OL 4), Desa Wonodadi (OL 2), Desa Mataram (OL 6), Desa
Wates (OL 7), Desa Gadingrejo Timur (OL 1), Desa Banyuwangi (OL 27), Desa Waya Krui (OL 21),and Desa Sinar Mulya (OL 22).
One informant was selected from each OL based on Chambers and Trudgill’s NORMS(nonmobile, older, rural, males) as the priority. Nevertheless, some adjustments of criteria were made,such as it can be female, it has senior high school degree at maximum, and the most important one is
the informant fluently speaks the language used by the community where he/she lives.
To collect lexical data, there were 350 words used as the insrument in this study as theprimary source of the data. These cover 200 Swadesh words, 52 basic words of body parts and 98
basic words of activities based on Kuesioner Kosakata Swadesh dan Kata Budaya Dasar(Questionaire of Swadesh List and Basic Vocabulary) from The Ministry of National Education(2013). Swadesh list contains the vocabulary that is beliveved to exist in every language in the world(Keraf, 1996), meanwhile the basic (cultural) words are believed to separate language and dialect. In
addition, the data collection was conducted through direct observation as proposed by Ayatrohaedi(2002) i.e. coming to OL, having direct notetaking, and recording. Further interview was conductedwhen necessary. There were three methods used to ask a glos: directly asking, describing a word,
using pictures or things.
In this study, both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed. The qualitative
method was used to describe and interpret lexical data in every OL. Firstly, the 350 maps were drawn,
where each map presents etyma’s distribution of 1 gloss. Straight line, called isogloss, in the map
shows that two areas are lexically different, meanwhile dot line, called isophone, shows that two areas
are lexically similar but phonologically different. Secondly, the bundle of isogloss of all words is also
made to see how thick the difference in every two areas is. The quantitative method, on the other hand,
was used to calculate dialectometry score. Dialectometry is the calculation to determine the degree ofdifferences of two areas as proposed by Seguy using the following formula, where s is the number ofdifferences, n is the number of total words, and d is the percentage of dialectometry.
s x 100 = d %n
In this study, the range of percentage from Lauder (1990 in Ayatrohaedi, 2002) was used. It states
when d is more than 70%, it means different language, 51-70% means different dialect, 41-50%
means different subdialect, 31-40% means different speech, under 30% means no difference.

161

3. Findings and Discussions
There are two points of discussion in this part. The first is the lexical variations distribution
and the second one is the status of the variations. From 350 maps drawn, the lexical data were highly
varied indicated by the gloss which has more than 14 etyma. There were two dominant groups ofetyma, which are the group of three etyma (69 glosses) and the group of four etyma (59 glosses). The
lexical variation distribution can be visually seen through the following isogloss bundles of 350
glosses.

Graph 1. Isogloss Bundles of 350 Words

Graph 1 ilustrates the isoglos thickness in some areas. In the south, there are two groups of
issogloses that are thick. The first is between OL 15 and OL 16-17 where OL 15 is the dominant
Lampung speaking area, meanwhile OL 16 and OL 17 are Sundanese speaking areas. The second is
between OL 14, the Lampung speaking area, and OL 18 and OL 8 where most of the people speakJavanese here. Furthermore, OL 9, as the people there said that this is Lampung Pubian speaking area,
is surrounded by thicker group of isoglosses spearating this area and the villages of Javanese speaking
communities.
In the northwest, thick isoglosses separate OL 32-33 and their surrounding. These two OL are
the areas of Sundanese speaking communities and they are surrounded by Javanese speaking villages.
Similar condition occured in OL 29-30, that are the areas of Lampung Pesisir speaking people, andtheir surroundings mostly speak Javanese. Interestingly, OL 26, the area where people there said that
this village uses Komering language, has some issogloses separating this area and OL 29 and this area162

and OL 30. It means that there a many similarities between two languages. As in the north, the thickissoglosses circled OL 20-22, Sundanese speaking areas, and OL 19 which is the Semendo speaking
area, and it also formed curve to separate OL 11-21, the Lampung speaking areas and other areas.
From these thick isoglosses in some directions, it can be seen that Pringsewu regency has high lexical
variations. The finding of the two dominant group of glosses shows that approximately there are threeor four languages exist in this regency.
The bundle of issoglosses can only reflect the rough differences among observation locations.
The differences were made clearer by the result of dialectometry calculation and presenting the resultin the map.

Graph 2. The comparison between Language Perception Map and Result of Dialectometry Map

The map on the left shows the people perception of language spoken in Pringsewu. This map
was made as the preliminary study of this dialectology research using the framework of perceptual
dialectology proposed by Preston (2010). The languages here according to the map are Lampung
Pesisir, Lampung Pubian, Semendo, Komering, Central Javanese, Javanese Ngapak, East Javanese,and Sundanese. On the right side is the map of dialectometry calculation result where straight line,
bold-dot line, dot line, dot-straight line, and small stripped line show the language difference, dialect
difference, subdialect difference, speech difference and no difference respectively. According to themap of dialectometry result, the range of no difference or below/equal to 30% are OL pair of 1-2, 1-7,
1-8, 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 3-4, 3-5, 3-31, 4-5, 4-10, 5-6, 5-10, 6-7, 6-10, 7-8, 7-10, 7-12, 8-13, 8-18, 10-12,
12-13, 12-23, 13-18, 13-23, 13-24, 17-33, 23-24, 23-25, 24-25, 27-28, 27-31, dan 28-31. These OL
pairs are the villages of Javanese community including three variaties mentioned in the perception
map. It means that, three varieties of Javanese as suggested by the local there actually the samelanguage with little difference in lexicon. What makes them name certain variety as Jawa Timuran is
because their ancestor come from a region in East Java, meanwhile those who name Jawa Ngapak is
actually the language spoken by the people in that region whose ancestor comes from Kebumen

163regency of Central Java and surroundings. Other OL pairs in this category are 11-21, 14-15 and 29-30,
Lampung speaking villages, meanwhile the OL pair of 16-17, 20-22, 32-33 are Sundanese speaking
villages.
Ideally, the two areas that speak different languages, as the map of language perception has
suggested, have at least or more than 70% of dialectometry result according to percentage range
proposed by Lauder. However, only 5 pairs of OL have it. Other OL pairs had only difference indialect, namely OL 18 (Javanese) – OL 14 (Lampung), OL 15 (Lampung) – OL 17 (Sundanese), OL
32 (Sundanese) – OL 28 (Javanese), OL 22 (Sundanese) – OL 26 (Komering), OL 25 (Javanese) – OL
17 (Sundanese), OL 11 (Lampung) – OL 19 (Semendo), OL 21 (Lampung) – OL 27 (Javanese), OL 14(Lampung) - OL 17 (Sundanese), OL 15 (Lampung) - OL 16 (Sundanese), OL 29 (Lampung) - OL 33(Sundanese), and OL 30 (Lampung) - OL 33 (Sundanese) .Furthermore OL pairs showing different
speech were OL 26 (Komering) and OL 29,30 (Lampung). Here are detail dialectometry for every pairof OL.
OL Pair
1—2
1—7
1—8
1—15
2—3
2—5
2—6
2—7
3—4
3—5
3—11
3—31
4—5
4—10
4—11
5—6
5—10
6—7
6—10
7—8
7—9
7—10
7—12
8—9
8—13
8—14
8—15
8—18
9—12

d
52
55
41
260
43
39
53
32
25
45
256
39
44
43
258
66
54
53
63
45
263
39
40
258
48
246
251
37
268

%
14,0 %
14,8 %
11,0 %
69,9 %
11,6 %
10,5 %
14,2 %
8,6 %
6,7 %
12,1 %
68,8 %
10,4 %
11,8 %
11,6 %
69,35 %
17,7 %
14,5 %
14,2 %
16,9 %
12,1 %
70,7 %
10,1 %
10,8 %
69,3 %
12,9 %
66,1 %
67,5 %
9,9 %
72,0 %OL Pair
9—13
10—11
10—12
10—19
11—19
11—20
11—21
11—27
11—31
12—13
12—19
12—23
13—18
13—23
13—24
14—15
14—17
14---18
14—25
15—16
15—17
16—17
17—25
17 –33
18—24
18—25
19—20
19—22
19—23

d
259
256
52
256
219
258
68
258
262
41
253
42
28
46
38
53
239
239
262
235
240
61
211
65
34
30
235
226
247

%
69,6 %
68,8 %
14 %
68,8 %
58,8 %
69,4 %
18,3 %
68,8 %
70,4 %
11,0 %
68,0 %
11,3 %
7,5 %
12,4 %
10,2 %
14,2 %
64,2 %
64,2 %
70,3 %
63,2 %
65,5 %
16,4 %
56,7 %
17,5 %
9,1 %
8,1 %63,1 %
60,7 %
66,4 %OL Pair20--21
20--22
21--22
21--2721--2822--2322--2622--2822--30
23--2423--2523--2624--2525--2625--2925--3326--2926--30
2--28
27--31
28--30
28--31
28--32
28--3329--30
29--3330--3331--32
32--33

d
257
57
266
256
256
212
239
223
244
37
50
259
39
258
260
210
111
121
35
36
242
28
221
203
41
236
239
219
47

%
69,1 %
15,3 %
71,5 %
68,8 %
68,8 %
60,0 %
64,2 %
59,9 %
65,6 %
9,9 %
13,4 %
69,6 %
10,5 %
69,4 %
69,9 %
56,5 %
29,8 %
32,5 %
9,4 %
9,7 %
65,1 %
7,5 %
59,4 %
54,6 %
11,0 %
63,4 %
64,2 %
58,9 %
12,6 %

Table 1. The Dialectometry Result in each OL Pair.
These findings raised some possible justifications. If we see the root of the language, Javanese,
Sundanese, Lampung, Komering and Semendo are actually categorized in one language family, which
is Proto West Malayo Polynesian (PWMP), a subdivision of Proto Austronesian (PAN). The following
graph ilustrates how close the relationship among the language based on Greenhill, Drummond, danGray (2010).

164

Graph 3. Some Parts of Phylogenetic of Proto West Malayo Polynesian (PWMP)

The graph above helps us to understand why some languages have similarities in lexicon. The similar
lexicon is derived from the relic words of Proto Austronesian (PAN) or Proto West Malayo Polynesian(PWMP). According to the map, the language pair that have dialect status are mostly JavaneseLampung, Sundanese-Lampung, Lampung-Komering, and Lampung-Semendo. Here is the example of
how Lampung and Semendo has similarities in their lexicon because they shared same PAN/PWMP
words. The proto words are based on Austronesian Comparative Dictionary Web Edition by Blust,
Robert dan Stephen Trussel (2016). Here are some example based on the findings.
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Glos
FIRE
WET
BLOOD
DUST
TWO
NOSE
DRY
KNEE

Semendo[api][basah][daxah][dəbu][duə][hiduŋ][kəxiŋ][əntuat]

Lampung[apuy][basɔh][xah][haxəbu][xua][ixuŋ][kəxiŋ][tuwɔt]

PAN/ PWMP*Sapuy*baseq*dáRaq
*ebuk
*duha
*ijuŋ
*keRiŋ
*tuhudTable 1. Semendo – Lampung language relationship

The table shows that the number of similar glosses is a lot. The table does not only shows about
language relationship, but also shows that both languages still preserve the archaic words from
PAN/PWMP. The similar glosses also occured between Sundanese and Lampungnese, where it
happened in a lot of glosses as well. At least 8 glosses reflect the similarities due to the same root of
PAN and PWMP.

165

No
1
2
3
5
6
7
8

Glos
SMOG
CORRECTFLOWER
DUST
NOSE
GRASS
ULAR

Sundanese[hasöp][bənər][kəmbaŋ][dəbu][iruŋ][jukut][ɔray]

Lampung[hasɔ?][bənɔx][kumbaŋ][haxəbu][IxUŋ][juku?][ulay]

PAN/ PWMP*qasep*bənər*buŋaa*ebuk*ijuŋ*zukut*hulaR

Table 2. Sundanese – Lampung language relationshipA question that raised is why, if they don’t share Proto Austronesian or Proto West Malayo
Polinesian, they still share the similar glosses? The first justification is that it might be possible thatthey are actually rooted from PAN/PWMP words but the relic words don’t exist in the PAN/PWMP
dictionary from Blust and Trussel (2016). Second, there might be contact among the language or the
speakers in the past which resulted in the shared vocabulary among them. Take a look at Javanese andSundanese. Both languages are closely related because both languages live in one island i.e. Javaisland, the origin of migrated Sundanese and Javanese that now live in Lampung province. There wasa very long contact between both of the ancestor speakes of both language before the next generation
migrated to Lampung. It seems that the close relation occured between Javanese-Sundanese andKomering-Lampung-Semendo. In the context of Komering, Lampung and Semendo, these languages
are spoken in Sumatera Island in the area of southern sumatera.
Another possible reason is that they have contact in term of education. According toThomason (2001: 4), this type of contact is called as learned contact i.e. language contact that iscaused by the process of teaching a language to some language groups so that they can communicate
one another. In Indonesian context, the role of Indonesian language is very vital to bridge theunintelligibility. Indonesian language is spread through education from primary school to higher
education, also from media such as television and newspaper. Due to intense casual contact towards
Indonesian language, some Indonesian words are also used in daily conversation subtituting oralternating basic vocabulary.

4. Conclusion
In Lampung context, especially in Pringsewu, the language situation is complex with four
major languages spreading in certain blocks and direction where Javanese is dominant andconcentrated in the center tothe east ofthe region . Those four languages have their own features andsome relationship with other languages surrounding due to the influence of Proto-Austronesian andProto West-Malayo Polynesian. Therefore, it not surprising that the result of dialectormetry
calculation can’t really reflect the status of the language. The possible contact, either casual or noncasual contact need to be further investigated to see the clear picture of language situation in thisregency.
References
Arsip Daerah Kabupaten Pringsewu. 2015. Sejarah Pringsewu. Pringsewu: Kantor Arsip Daerah
Kabupaten Pringsewu

166

Ayatrohaedi. 2002. Pedoman Penelitian Dialektologi. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan
Nasional.
Blust, Robert dan Stephen Trussel. 2016. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary Web Edition.
Retrieved on March 8 2016 at www.trussel2.com/ACD
BPS Pringsewu. 2015. Pringsewu dalam angka 2015. Retrieved on November 13 2015 atwww.pringsewuka.bps.go.id
Chambers, JK dan Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenhill SJ, Drummond AJ, & Gray RD. 2010. How Accurate and Robust Are the Phylogenetic
Estimates of Austronesian Language Relationships? PLoS ONE 5(3): e9573.
Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional. 2013. Penelitian Kekerabatan dan Pemetaan Bahasa di Indonesia,
Kuesioner Kosakata Dasar dan Kata Budaya Dasar.
Keraf, Gorys. 1996. Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia.
Kurniawati, Wati. 2007. Mendeteksi Klasifikasi Dialek Bahasa Lampung. Unpublished materials:
Tesis Universitas Indonesia
Lauder, Multamia RMT. 2007. Sekilas Mengenai Pemetaan Bahasa. Jakarta Timur: Akbar Media
Aksara.
Lembaga Bahasa Nasional.1972. Peta Bahasa-Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Direktorat Jendral
Kebudayaan Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Preston, Dennis. R. 2010. Language, People, Salience, Space: Perceptual Dialcetology and Language
Regard dalam Dialectologia 5 (2010), 87-131. Retrieved on November 15 2015 atwww.raco.cat>article>download
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001.Language Contact. Eidinburgh: Eidinburgh University Press
Zawarnis, Yulfi. 2009. Variasi Dialektal Bahasa Jawa di Lampung. Unpublished materials:
Universitas Indonesia.

167

168

The Mandar Language Isolate in Makassar, South Sulawesi
Nadia Almira Sagitta
Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa

Abstract
Makassar is the center of government, education, and economy in South Sulawesi. This becomesa public appeal for citizens to settle in Makassar. Makassar inhabited by various ethnic and canbe proven by the existence of ethnic villages in Makassar such as Toraja village and Mandarvillage. It affects the language situation in Makassar city. Based on that, this study was
conducted to describe language variation in Makassar and explain where the limits of languageand dialect in Makassar. The method used in this study are qualitative and quantitative. Based on
the dialectometry calculation, two languages are found in Makassar, which is Makassar language
and Mandar language.

1

Introduction

Based on data released by the Summer Institute of Linguistics in 2015, Indonesia has 719 languages, ofwhich 707 languages are alive and 12 languages are extinct. However, not all Indonesian languages havebeen mapped due to the number of researchers. This problem can be solved by conducting
dialectological research. Dialectology research conducted in Sulawesi is quite a few only sixteen studies.
Four studies of which concentrated in South Sulawesi Province, namely research on Bugis, Toraja andMassenrempulu. Until this research, no dialectology research has been found on Makassar language or
dialectology research conducted specifically in Makassar. Therefore, the author is interested to examine
the language situation in Makassar.
The linguistic situation in the metropolitan city - in this case the city of Makassar - is interesting tostudy because an urban area is known as multilingual area. Makassar is bordered by Makassar-speaking
area (Gowa) and Bugis (Maros). The presence of various ethnic villages in several subdistricts also
affect the language situation in Makassar as an urban city.
Based on this, the research problem is the variation of any language in Makassar and where thelocation of dialect and language boundary in the city of Makassar. The purpose of this research is todescribe the variation of language found in Makassar and explain the location of dialect and language
boundary in Makassar.

2

SectionThe method used for this research is a field survey (Ayatrohaedi, 1983: 19). Field survey is a method ofcollecting data in which researchers visit the field and get information directly from informants (Lauder,2007: 73). To conduct research in the field, the researchers must decide the observation points, thecriteria used to select informants, and the design of the questionnaire which will be used to elicit
information. The researchers ask all informants same questions based on the questionnaire. The
response is recorded and written down using phonetic notation. The questionnaire was based on thebasic word list by Swadesh (200 words), and other vocabulary in a number of semantic fields includingcolors, greetings, seasons, natural features and objects, and directions. The design and content of thequestionnaire is based on Lauder (2007: 138—159).
Observation points are locations where data will be collected. This research gathered information in
fourteen points. These are Makassar, Ujung Pandang, Wajo, Bontoala, Tallo, Panakkukang, Mamajang,Mariso, Ujung Tanah, Tamalanrea, Manggala, Rappoccini, Tamalate and Biringkanaya subdistricts.
Most of the observation points are located in the cities, thus this can be considered urban.

169

Fourteen informants were used in the research, one in each data collection point. The criteria for
their selection was as follows: (1) Age 40-60 years old; (2) Highest education level achieved ispreferably elementary school; (3) The informant is indigenous to the area, being born in and having
lived there until this research conducted; (4) Informant’s first language is local language.

South Sulawesi Map

Makassar Map

3

Analysis

The 248 map symbols are grouped into several etyma, one etyme, two etyma, three etyma, four etyma,
five etyma, six etyma, seven etyma, and eight etyma. The group of two etyma is the group with thelargest number of variants numbering 108 which represents 43.5% of the total. Group of two etyma andtwo symbols have 73 words, given 66 words from Swadesh. Meanwhile, 21 words belong to two etyma
with three symbols group, 9 word belong to two etyma with four symbols group, 4 words belong to two
etyma with five symbols group and 1 word belong to two etyma with six symbols group.
Given the vocabulary that falls into two etyma with two symbols, it can be said that there are two
language differences in the research area. Two etyma two symbols group has the greatest number
compared to other two etyma groups that has 29 Swadesh basic words, 1 color word, 3 greetings and 9seasons, natural features, nature objects and directions words. The Swadesh’s isogloss map is given
below.
.

170

Swadesh basic words isogloss

Based on the visualization obtained from the Swadesh's isogloss, the buildup line occurred at theobservation point 8. The thickening that occurred at point 8, namely Lette village, was caused by adifferent language area, the Mandar language. Lines elsewhere is not as thick as line in point 8.

171All words isogloss

Visualization on compilation isogloss between Swadesh basic words and colours, greetings, seasons,natural objects, and direction vocabularies shows the same result. Thickening line is seen on point 8(Mariso subdistrict). To get detailed explanation about language, dialect, subdialect, or speechdifferences, the dialectometry calculation is need to be done.
On Swadesh basic words, the dialectometry calculation between the point 8 (Mariso subdistrict) and11 (Tamalate subdistrict) is 71% and point 7 (Mamajang subdistrict) and 8 (Mariso subdistrict) by
70.5%. Other observation points that connect with point 8 are point 2 and 3. The result of dialectometry
calculation shows the percentage between point 8 (Mariso subdistrict) and 2 (Ujung Pandang
subdistrict) is 69. Meanwhile, the dialectometry percentage between point 8 (Mariso subdistrict) and 3(Wajo subdistrict) is 68%. The latter two belong to different dialect category.
Meanwhile, the dialectometry calculation result of all vocabularies shows results that not muchdifferent. The percentage between the point 8 (Mariso subdistrict), point 11 (Tamalate subdistrict) andpoint 2 (Ujung Pandang subdistrict) is 70.96%. The different percentage between point 8 (Mariso
subdistrict) and 3 (Wajo subdistrict) is 68.54%. The percentage between point 7 (Mamajang subdistrict)and 8 (Mariso subdistrict) is 69.75%. The percentage elsewhere is not enough to be categorized as
differences in speech, subdialect, dialect, let alone language. The spider web map below is aligned withdialectometry calculation.

172

Spider web of Swadesh basic words

Spider web of all words

173

Based on Lauder formulation (1993: 242), percentage above 70% indicates language difference. Point 8
connection with other points shows percentage above 70%. Therefore, point 8 use different language
from its surroundings. Actually, there is Makassar language like the other observation points in Mariso
subdistrict, but there is an isolate area, which is Lette village that use Mandar in every day
communication. To strengthen the evidence of language difference, here is shown several words fromtwo etyma group.
Num.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

4

Gloss
WATER
FOOT
FISH
TEETH
BLACK
SHORT
SHARP
TO WALKTO LAUGH
TO STAND
YOU
I
NAME
NO
MANY

Mandarway
let:eɁ
bauriŋŋe
malɔtɔŋ
map:ɔc:imataðaŋ
mel:amba
mecawamek:eɁdeɁ
iɁo
iyaw
saŋa
andiaŋ
maiɁdiɁ

MakassarjɛɁnɛɁ
baŋkɛŋ
jukuɁ
gigilɛɁlɛŋ
bɔdɔtaraŋaɁjap:amak:alaɁ
am:enteŋ
kau
nak:e
arɛŋ
tena
jayi

Difference between Mandar and Makassar Language

In addition to explain the difference between Mandar and Makassar language, this paper also explained
a bit about difference from phonological and morphological aspect.
4.1

Sound correspondence between Mandar and Makassar Language

This research found sound correspondence between Mandar and Makassar language. There are four
consonant correspondences and two vowel correspondences obtained from this research.
4.1.1 Consonant correspondence
Consonant correspondence identified on the first and second syllable in open and closed syllables.
Consonant
Gloss
Correspondence.
SLEEP[d]~[r][m]~[p]MandarMakassar

tindo

tinro

IN HERE
TWO

indinidaɁduwa

rinni
ruwa

COLD (OFWEATHER)YELLOW
VILLAGEFOREST

riŋiŋ

diŋiŋ

maririkap:uŋ
rop:oŋ

didi
kampuŋ
romaŋ

IF

muaɁ

pun:a

174

Observation
point(Makassar)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12,
143, 4, 6, 7, 10
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
13, 14
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14
1
2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14

[n]~[t]STAR
THUNDER

bit:ɔeŋ
gut:uribintɔeŋ
gunturuɁ

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14

The table above shows that there are ten lexicons of Mandar which are quite similar to Makassar.
The lexicons can be categorized into three sound correspondence namely [d]~[r] (4 data), [m]~[p](3 data) and [n]~[t] (2 data). According to van der Tuuk second law, /r/, /d/ and /l/ is interchangeable inAustronesian language. There are five examples that fitted into van der Tuuk second law, e.g. [tindo]
and [tinro] that shows [d]-[r] sound correspondence and [riŋiŋ] and [diŋiŋ] that refers to [r]-[d] soundcorrespondence. All sound correspondences located in same place of articulation. However, it isproduced in different manner. When assimilation occurred, [d] merged into [n] sound. The /d/ and /r/ arealveolar sound, /m/ and /p/ are bilabial sound, /n/ and /t/ are also alveolar sound.
4.1.2 Vowel correspondence
Vowel correspondence identified on the first and second syllable in open and closed syllables.
Consonant
Gloss
Correspondence.
TIGHT[i]~[e][a]~[e]MandarMakassar

sip:iɁ

sep:aɁNAME
FOR
LITTLE
GIRL
ALL

cic:iɁ

ac:eɁ

nasaŋ

ŋaseŋ

KNOW

wis:aŋ

is:eŋ

ROOT
FOUR

wakeɁ
ap:eɁ

akaɁ
ap:aɁ

Observation
point(Makassar)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
14
3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
14
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13,
14
2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13
3, 4, 6, 9, 13

4.1.3 Prefix ma- in Mandar Language
Prefix ma- not only to form verbs, but also adjectives. Adjectives in Mandar language can’t stand alone
without this specific prefix, unlike adjectives in Makassar language that does not need any prefix at all.
Those adjective words are given below.
Gloss
BLACK
BLUE
WHITE
RED
WIDE
LONG
SHORT
OLD
SLIM

Mandarmalɔtɔŋmagavumaputemamea
malɔŋgaŋ
malak:aɁmap:ɔc:imabuveŋ
manipisMakassarlɛɁlɛŋ
gau, biru, mɔncɔŋ bulɔ, kɔndɔɁ- kɔndɔɁkɛbɔɁ
eja, merah
luwaraɁ, laɁbaɁ, lɔmpɔ
laɁbu
bɔdɔ
tɔa
nipisiɁ, nipis, tipisiɁ, tipis, caɁdi, bayaŋ

175

5

Conclusion

From 248 words—consist of 200 Swadesh basic words, 5 pronouns and greeting words, 7 color words,
and 36 nature and direction words, two etyma group is the greatest in number which is 108 words. From
both isoglosses, there is thickening line on point 8. That is aligned with spider web map. Dialectometry
calculation of all words shows the largest percentage between point 8 and 11 and 2 with 70.96%.
Meanwhile, the other points didn’t show difference at any level of speech. Based on Lauder formula, thepercentage indicates that point 8 use different language. Mandar language which located in Lette village,
Mariso subdistrict, is classify as isolate language because majority language in Mariso subdistrict is
Makassar language.
Glosses from Mandar and Makassar language shows consonant and vowel correspondence. On
consonant correspondence, there are [d]~[r], [m]~[p] and [n]~[t]. The [d]~[r] sound correspondencealign with van der Tuuk second law R-D-L. On vowel correspondence, there are [i]~[e] and [a]~[e].

Acknowledgements
The author thank Prof. Multamia Lauder for her assistance to this paper and for believing the author towrite this paper. The author also thank Sri Munawarah, M. Hum for inspiring the author to do thisresearch.
References
Ayatrohaedi. (1979). Dialektologi: Sebuah pengantar. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional.
__________. (1997). Kamus khusus penelitian kekerabatan dan pemetaan bahasa-bahasa daerah diIndonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
__________. (2002). Pedoman Penelitian Dialektologi. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
Chambers, J.K. dan Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology second edition.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lauder, Multamia MT. (1993. Pemetaan dan distribusi bahasa-bahasa di Tangerang. Jakarta: Departemen
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
__________________. (2007). Sekilas mengenai pemetaan bahasa. Jakarta: Media Eka Sarana.
Muthalib, Abdul. (1977). Kamus Bahasa Mandar-Indonesia. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan
Bahasa.
Pelenkahu, R.A., Abdul Muthalib and M. Zain Sangi. (1983). Struktur Bahasa Mandar. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan
dan Pengembangan Bahasa.
Sagitta, Nadia Almira. (2016). “Pemetaan Bahasa Mayoritas di Kota Makassar”. Undergraduate thesis.
Depok: Fakultas Ilmu Pengetahuan Budaya Universitas Indonesia.
Blust, Robert Andrew. “Austronesian Languages”. Britannica. Retrieved
from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Austronesian-languages.
Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (Eds.). Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/country/ID.

176

Contributors
Multamia R.M.T. LAUDER, Universitas Indonesia
Allan F. LAUDER, Universitas Indonesia
Sri MUNAWARAH, Universitas Indonesia
Mesiyarti MUNIR, University of Indonesia
Nor Hashimah JALALUDDIN, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Junaini KASDAN, Institute of the Malay World and Civilization
Harishon RADZI, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Youichi NAGATO, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Mitsuaki ENDO, Aoyama Gakuin University
Chitsuko FUKUSHIMA, University of Niigata Prefecture
Mika FUKAZAWA, The Preparatory Office for National Ainu Museum
Satoko SHIRAI, JSPS / University of Tsukuba
Hiroyuki SUZUKI, University of Oslo / National Museum of Ethnology
Sonam Wangmo, University of Oslo
Shinsuke KISHIE, Tokushima University
Yukako SAKOGUCHI, Shikoku University
Agusniar Dian SAVITRI, Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Supriatnoko, State Polytechnic of Jakarta
Suprayogi, Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Nadia Almira SAGITTA, Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Indonesia

Acknowledgements

This volume is a part of the results of the project on “Studies in Asian Geolinguistics” 2015-2017
at the ILCAA, TUFS. The articles were partially supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (KAKENHI) JP15K02525, JP16J01055, JP16K16820, JP17J40087, JP18H00670,
respectively.

177