GENETICAL STATUS OF RELATEDNESS BETWEEN SAMBORI AND TETA DIALECTS SPOKEN IN BIMA REGENCY, WEST NUSA TENGGARA
Abstract
Sambori and Teta isolects are spoken by their speech community who live at Lambitu District, Bima Regency, Indonesia. Their language classification status is not yet clear whether as two different languages or as two different dialects. This article aims to describe: 1) the status of their language classification; 2) their uniting and differentiating phonological features, and 3) their uniting and differentiating lexical features. This study applied a comparative method. The obtained data were analyzed quantitatively using lexicostatistics and language classification of Swadesh. The uniting and differentating features were qualitatively determined using the description of their phonological and lexical similarities and differences; The study findings show that: 1) the status of the two isolects are as two different dialects of the same language spoken in the regency; 2) the uniting phonological features show that both of them have: (a) the same vowel phonemes: /ʌ/,/ɪ/, /ʊ/, /e/, /ɔ/, /ə/; (b) the same diphthongs: /ʌʊ/, /ʌe/, /ɪʌ/, /ʌɪ/, /eɪ/, /ʊʌ/; c) the same consonants: /p/, /b/, /f/, /t/ /d/, /h/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, /m /, /n/, /ŋ /,/k/, /g/, /?/, /r/, /s/, /y/, /w/; d) they possess clusters of two m-blends: /mp/, /mb/, and three n-blends: /nd/, /nt/, /nʧ /, and /kb/; and e) phonologically, Sambori dialect does not posses /kl/ and /nj/ cluster, while Teta dialect does. Based on Swadesh's word list, the lexical uniting features show that the two dialects have 98% cognates, and 2 % of their lexical features are in different forms.
References
Arafiq, A. (2019). Language of sambori: A morphosyntaxic study. Linguistika, 26(1), 84-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/ling.2019.v26.i01.p10
Arafiq, Hanafi, N., Mu’adz, M. H., & Yusra, K. (2018). The syntactic properties and distributions of personal pronouns insambori language. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 3(1), 1-10.
Bowern, C. (2015). Linguistics: Evolution and language change. Current Biology, 25(1), R41-R43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.053
Budasi, I. G., Indriani, M. S., & Sudirman. (2017). Kinship status isolects-isolects in Bima, Sumbawa Island, West Nusa Tenggara: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Singaraja: Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha.
Bynon, T. (1979). Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyen, I. (1975). A Lexicalstatistical Classification of the Melayu-Polinesian Languages. Baltimore: Waverly Press.
Fernandez, I. Y. (1996). Flores language kinship historical relations: A comparative historical linguistic study of larantuka ende. Jakarta: Nusa Indah.
Grant, A. P. (2010). On using qualitative lexicostatistics to illuminate language history: Some techniques and case studies. Diachronica, 27(2), 277-300. doi: 10.1075/dia.27.2.06gra
Jeffers, R. J., & Leheste, I. (1979). Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Keraf, G. (1997). Historical Comparative Linguistics. Jakarta: Pustaka Indonesia.
List, J.-M., S. J., & Gray, R. D. (2017). The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. Plos One, 12(1), 1-18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170046
Starostin, G. (2010). Preliminary lexicostatistics as a basis for language classification: A new approach. Journal of Language Relationship, 3, 79-116.
Yusra, K., Lestari, B., Ahmadi, N., Asyhar, M., & Soemerep, A. (2016). Dialectological position of the language of Sambori. Linguistik Indonesia, 147-161.
Zhang, M., & Gong, T. (2016). How many is enough? Statistical principle for lexicostatistics. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01916
is published by:
