Microsoft Word - Halus Mandala E_journal

PHONOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF OIRATA AND
ITS GENETIC RELATIONSHIP WITH NON-AUSTRONESIAN

LANGUAGES IN TIMOR LESTE

Halus Mandala1, Aron Meko Mbete2,
Ni Made Dhanawaty2, Inyo Yos Fernandez3

1Postgraduate Program, Udayana University
2Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters, Udayana University

3Indonesian Department, Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Gadjah Mada University
E-mail: halusm@ymail.com

ABSTRACT

Oirata (Or) as a NAN language was indicated to have a genetic relationship
with languages in East Timor, i.e. Bunak (Bn) and Makasai (Mk) (Greenberg, 1971) and
with Mk, Fataluku (Ft) and Lovaea (Lov) (Capell, 1975). The two opinions are confusing
and different from one another. Hence, an effort to trace the genetic relationship of the
languages was made to clarify the matter. Or in Kisar Island was also assumed to
originate from East Timor (de Jong, 1937). The native speakers should have brought with
them their language and it is believed that the acculturation and language contact with the
languages in the surrounding areas must have occurred. This condition opened up room
for internal and external evolution in Or.
This study observed nine languages: two languages in Kisar Island and seven
in East Timor. The data were collected through interviews and face-to face conversations
with the informants who were selected by purposive sampling until a point of saturation
was reached. The data analysis was done by using vertical-horizontal syncomparative and
diacomparative method which led to the following conclusions.
Or, Ft and Mk were diachronically and convincingly proved to have a close
genetic relationship with a split patterned family tree. The Oirata-Fataluku-Makasai
(OFM) group that was once the ancestor of the three languages underwent a split into
Oirata-Fataluku (OF) and Mk. It means that Or is closer o Ft than Mk and at the same
time it refuted the opinions of Greenberg (1971) and Capell (1975) that Or is closer to
Mk.
Or turned out to have undergone an internal phonological evolution as the
result of a diachronic interaction with languages that were genetically related to it in the
form of: (1) vocal split */i//_#, */a//#_ and /_#; (2) vocal merger */e//_#, (3) vocal
centralization, (4) consonant split and (5) voiced stop consonant formation. The external
phonological evolution was caused by the contact with the languages in the region and
Or has undergone: (1) enrichment of consonant phonemes: /b/, /c/, /d/, /j/, /g/, /ng/, /f/, /v/,
and /z/, (2) formation of clusters, (3) addition of homorganic nasal stop consonant
clusters: /mp/,/mb/, /nt/, /nđ/, and (4) shift toward a non-vocalic language.

Key words: language evolution, language genetic relationship, language grouping and

reconstructing a protolanguage

1. Introduction

Indonesia’s historical comparative linguists have so far been more

interested in studying AN languages, despite the long time recognition of the

presence of AN languages in South East Asia. In the same manner, interest

among the researchers of NAN languages has not been so great. Even, Wurm

(1975) says that the historical comparative language researchers have not so far

shown any interest in NAN languages of TNG phylum and its relationship with

AN languages. On the other hand, the languages in this region are very potential

and important to study. This study is intended to fill in the gap and at the same

time, stimulates other researchers to be interested in NAN languages.

Or as one of the NAN languages in this region is interesting to be studied.

First, the language is assumed to be related to the languages in Timor (de Jong,

1937) Second, Greenberg (1971) states that Or has a close relationship with Bn

and Mk languages in East Timor and Ab in Alor which are categorized as TA

internal subgroup. Third, Capell (1975) even completes the TA group to include

Ab language in Alor, Bn, Mk, Ft and Lov languages in East Timor and Or

language in Kisar Island. However, Capell adds that the position of each

language in the TA group has not yet been coherent and needs to be studied

further. Fourth, Or is used in two villages and spoken side by side with the other

languages in Kisar Island. The population of Kisar Island speaks Or as NAN

language and also uses Ks language which belongs to AN languages. As a

language which is spoken side by side with other languages in a small island, the

speakers of the two languages, who have different cultures, are believed to

interact with each other and this leads to language contact phenomenon. Slowly

by surely, this phenomenon in the long run makes room for the language change

process to take place.

This study has the aims which can be described as follows. (1) To identify

the essential characteristics of Or, Ft, and Mk languages to obtain a phonological

concrete synchronic description of each of them. Hence, their characteristics will

become clear as languages which are different from other languages. (2) To

clarify genetic relationships of Or, Ft and Mt by grouping and reconstruction of

their protolanguage. The clarity of the pattern of genetic relationship of Or, Ft

and Mk realized by the grouping and the reconstruction of their protolanguage

can also imply as a verification of the grouping made by Greenberg (1971) and

Capell (1975). (3) To trace the origin of the phonemes of Or language in order to

provide historical facts of this language development as a language which is

internally related to the languages that are genetically similar as the NAN

language group and interacts externally with the other languages in the region.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Literature Review

Some research findings are relevant and worth reviewing in relation to the

present study. In “Oirata, a Timorese Settlement on Kisar”, de Jong (1937)

studied Or with its various aspects which were assumed to be related to the

languages in Timor by using synchronic approach; hence, the work does not

give an explicit description about its history and relationship with the

genetically similar languages as expected in this study.

In “People and Languages of Timor”, Capell (1944) mentions that in

Timor Island there are two language groups, i.e. Indonesian and non-Indonesian.

The Indonesian language group comprises Tt, Mb, Tk, Gl and Id. The non-

Indonesian language group found in Timor (East Timor) mountainous area

comprise Bn, Mk, Wm, and Kr. The last two languages have been proved as AN

languages (Mandala, 1999 and 2000). Capell focuses more on Bn and Mk as non-

Indonesian languages that are compared to the languages with a similar type as

Or language in Kisar Island and languages in HU and contrasted with Indonesian

language.

Cowan (1965) in “The Oirata Language” classifies Or language in Kisar

Island as NAN language which belongs to a group with Mk and Bn in Timor

(East Timor) and interrelated with the languages in the south coast of Bird Head

(in Papua Island). However, he did not give convincing linguistic facts since the

study was based on a limited number of data.

Greenberg (1971) in “The Indo-Pacific Hypothesis” focuses his discussion

on the TA language group of NAN languages and decides that Ab language in

Alor Island, Or language in Kisar Island, and Bn and Mk languages in Timor

(East Timor) belong to TA internal subgroup. In that subgroup, it is stated that Ab

language is closer to Bn, while Or is closer to Mk. This decision is based on the

similarity in pronouns (the first and second singular and plural persons) that the

languages have.

All of the studies above in principle synchronically compare the structural

aspects of the languages by using a limited number of words. The present study is

diachronic and is based on quantitative and qualitative evidence by grouping and

reconstruction of their protolanguage. Even the study goes to the point where the

phonological evolution, both internally and externally, is described.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

Language evolution is a process of language transformation, in a long

period of time in a natural way from the initial form to the final one as can be

seen today with various variations, adaptations, natural selections, and the

characteristics of a phylum (Nerlich, 1989; Lass, 1990; and McMahon, 1999).

The concept of language evolution in the historical comparative linguistic

phenomena tends to be more relevant to the concept of Darwinian biological

evolution (McMahon, 1999). The argument is that historical linguistics and

historical biology are two special fields that are specially related to the theory of

evolution in general (Stevick, 1963). Language and species are two systems that

exist and undergo changes. Hence, language and species undergo the same

change of forms which end up in the development of classification represented in

a family tree. Biologically, language and population share two common

characteristics, i.e., (1) the structure can be passed on from one generation to the

next, (2) the variation is isolated one from another and develops separately (Lass,

1990).

Based on the concept of evolution described above, the theoretical

framework of this study is based on the theory of language change (Labov, 1994

and McMahon, 1999). Change in a language, generally, can occur as the result of

internal and external processes. In a historical comparative linguistic study, an

internal language change, i.e. a change in language as the result of a long

development in time leads to individual languages which originates from a

common ancestral language, which can be traced by applying the theory of

language genetic relationship (Bynon, 1979; Hock, 1988; Jeffers and Lehiste,

1979). External change in language occurs as the result of language in contact

process, both in the context of linguistic area as well as in the framework of

socio-political relation that can be traced with the theory of diffusion (Rickford,

1986; Labov, 1994 and Dixon, 1997).

The genetic relationship among languages of the same family in the

historical comparative linguistic study in principle can be proved on the basis of

the inherited elements of the original language or protolanguage (Hock, 1988).

The linguistic facts manifested in orderliness and correspondence found in the

languages which are genetically related show the evidence of the authenticity

inherited from a common ancestor (Bryon, 1979:47). The grouping means the

determination of the family tree of the language groups for the purpose of

clarifying the genetic structure. Through the grouping, the status of each language

is established. On the other hand, the reconstruction of the protolanguage

clarifies the genetic relationship and the bond of origin of the languages in

accordance with the level of genetic relationship depicted in the family tree.

3. Research Method

The method of data collection used in this study was the speak, record and

note technique (Sudaryanto, 1988:7) and implemented in face-to-face interaction

(Moleong, 1997:25-27). The instrument of data collection used was the 200 basic

words from Swadesh List (revised by Blust, 1980) and Holle List of 1600 words.

The data analysis used was Syncomparative and diacomparative method as

suggested by Lass (1969:15). Syncomparative was applied to analyze data

synchronically while diacomparative was based on the diachronic analysis. The

synchronic and diachronic analyses have autonomous characteristics, but are

interdependent. Saussure states that synchronic analysis is limited to the

perspective of finding the entirety of the language system in a particular time. In

contrast, diachronic analysis followed the language evolution, does not view the

entirety of the language, but the particular elements at different times (Gordon,

2002: 34). The application of diacomparative method in the present study was

made with vertical and horizontal approach.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Genetic Relationship of Or, Ft, Mk Languages and the Languages in

the Surrounding Area

The quantitative evidence found in the nine languages under observation

and on the basis of lexicostatistical computation of the cognate set collected by

using the 200 basic words of Swadesh list, showed that Or, Ft, and Mt languages

are the languages which belong to a separate group as OFM that are related by

the 33% genetic relationship. The closest relation is between Or and Ft as an OF

subgroup by the 47% genetic relationship, followed by Ft and Mk by 28%, and

Or and Mk by only 24%. Hence, the family tree of the group genetic relationship

has a split pattern, i.e. the OFM language group as the ancestor language which is

divided into two subgroups, i.e. OF and Mk. The OF subgroup as mesolanguage

which is divided into Or and Ft which finally become autonomous languages of

Or, Ft, and Mk.

The qualitative evidence also confirms the quantitative one, particularly in

the integrating and at the same time separating evidence of the OFM group in the

form of: (a) OFM: Mk /b/  Ft /p/  Or /h/, OFM: MK /s/  Ft  /h/  Or //, (c)

OFM: Mk /t/  Ft /c/  Or /d/, and (e) a number of OFM protolanguages are

found. The OF language subgroup is realized by the separating and at the same

time integrating evidence of the OF subgroup in the form of: (a) OF phonemic

correspondence with Mk phonemes in the initial position, word-middle and word-

final positions, (b) metathesis in Mk, (c) prothesis in Mk, (d) aphaeresis in Mk,

(e) syncope in Mk, (f) apocope in Mk, and a number of exclusively lexical

innovations in OF.

On the basis of the quantitative evidence in the percentages of genetic

relationship and the qualitative evidence in the form of the OFM group integrating

evidence and the OF separating and at the same time integrating evidence as

described above, the genetic relationship between Or, Ft, and Mk languages can

be formulated in the form of a family tree that follows the binary split, i.e. OFM

group as the ancestor of the three languages which is divided into OF and Mk.

Then, OF as mesolanguage which is divided into Or and Ft.

4.2 The Reconstruction of the Protolanguage of Or, Ft, and Mk

Reconstructing OFM protolanguage is a process of tracing abstract

relationship of common origin comprising vocal protophonemes, consonant

protophonemes, and protowords of that language group.

a. Reconstructing Vocal Protophonemes

Through the tracing of Or, Ft and MK vocal phonemes and the vocal

phonemic change system that occurs in the three languages, five vocal phonemes

have been reconstructed, namely, */i/,*/u/, */e/, */o/ and */a/, both at the level of

OFM group and at the OF subgroup. The proto phonemes generally underwent

split in mesolanguage and modern language by the dominant phonemic change

rule in the form of progressive assimilation followed by regressive assimilation

and dissimilation. In addition, a merger process occurred in the form of vowel

centralization.

b. Reconstructing Consonant Protophonemes

On the basis of the result of the tracing of Or, Ft and Mk consonant

phonemes and the consonant phonemic change system that occur in the three

languages, 10 consonant protophonemes could be reconstructed at the OFM

subgroup level, namely: */p/, */t/, */k/, */’/, */m/, */n/, */l/, */r/,*/s/,*/w/ and 12

consonant protophonemes at the OF subgroup level by adding */h/ and */y/

consonants. The consonant protophonemes tended to undergo split at

mesolanguage and modern language through the rule of phonemic change in the

form of voicing, palatalization, and nasalization (homorganic nasal stop

consonant cluster).

c. Reconstructing Proto Words

In addition to vocal and consonant protophonemic reconstruction, OFM

proto words have also been reconstructed as the realization of the common origin

of the OFM group and the OF protowords as the realization of the OF language

subgroup. The OFM protowords that were found have 180 etymons in the form of

exclusive joint innovation that is only possessed by the language group and is not

found in the other languages. The OF protowords consist of 209 etymons that are

only found in the subgroup. The OFM protowords have undergone innovations

at the mesolanguage level and modern language level through the rule of

phonemic change in the form of apocope, voicing, fricativization, and metathesis

in Mk language; palatalization, laryngalization, and fricativization in Ft language,

and syncope, laryngalization, metathesis, aspiration, and /h/ phoneme release in

Or language.

4.3 Phonological Evolution of Or Language

1) Internal Evolution

In the historical perspective, as the effect of diachronic interaction with

languages in the OFM group, Or language underwent vocal phonemic change and

consonant phonemic change.

In vocal phonemic evolution in the form of OFM vocal protophonemes: */u/

and */o/, a retention occurred together in the OF subgroup and in the vocal

phonemes */u/, */o/ and */a/ a retention occurred in Or language in all positions.

Three vocal protophonemes of OFM */i//_#, */e//_# and */_# underwent split and

merger in OF and two OF vocal protophonemes */i//_# and */e// _# underwent

split and merger in Or, and the vowel centralization in that language group.

In consonant phonemic evolution a change occurred from 10 consonant

protophonemes in OFM into 12 consonant protophonemes, by adding phonemes

*/y/ and */h/ in OF and 13 consonant phonemes in Or, by adding phoneme /d/.

2) External Evolution

Externally, the phonology of Or also underwent evolution as the result of

language contact with In, Bel, Por, Ks and Am languages. The forms of change

are as follows: (a) enrichment of consonant phonemes /b/, /c/, /d/, /j/, /g/, /ng/, /f/,

/v/, and /z/; (b) the cluster formation: dw, kl, kr, pl, pr, sl, sr, st and tr; (c) the

addition of homorganic nasal stop consonant cluster: /mp/, /mb/, /nt/, and /nđ/; (d)

enrichment of syllabic patterns; (e) shift from vocalic to non-vocalic language.

5. New Findings

1) The relationship between Or and Ft turned out to be closer than that between

Or and Mk. This finding at the same time refutes Greenberg the opinions of

Greenberg (1971) and Capell (1975) who state that Or is closer to Mk than to

Bn.

2) Greenberg (1971) classifies NAN languages in the region of TAP, HU, KB and

the surrounding areas as West Papuan Phylum with a very low genetic

relationship (12% and below). The findings of the present study showed that

the relationship of the three languages (Or-Ft-Mk) falls into the stock category

and the average of the cognate similarity is 33%. Moreover, the relationship of

Or and Ft belongs to the family category with 47% genetic relationship.

3) The method of an accurate protolanguage reconstruction is not enough by

relying on the so far applicable correspondence rules. But, it should be done

up to the point of finding the phonemic change that occurred in the language

group under study. Hence, the use of symbols and capital letters and

alternative phonemes are no longer needed.

4) In this study the vocal phonemic change system was found in the form of

vowel centralization. The rules of change in the form of split and merger and

assimilation and dissimilation correspondence that occurred in the group

ended in the vowel centralization. The implication is that if there is a high-

medium-low vocal correspondence in some words it can be reconstructed as

high or low vowel.

5) It was also found that consonant phonemes in the form of voicing in the

voiceless stop consonants were traced through the split rule with the

correspondents. This finding also serves as the internal evolution of voiceless

stop consonants that occurred in the OFM language group in a balanced

manner.

6) This study also found Or to have lost its natural identity including a shift

toward non-vocalic language. The factors leading to this include: (a) Or

belongs to the substratum of languages of its surrounding areas; (b) the

hegemony of Indonesian language over Or is very strong, particularly. In the

religious domain; (c) the less dominant role of the Or language users in their

environment; (d) the language development system (internal & external) that

does not work; (e) the closed language users’ culture toward the existence of

their language and (f) the image of Or as a dead language.

6. Conclusion and Suggestions

6.1 Conclusion

1) Synchronically, Or, Ft and Mk have phonological identity as follows:

a) Or, Ft and Mk share five vocal phonemes (/i/, /u/, /e/,/o/ and/e/, /a/) that

can distribute completely and share a common diphthong phoneme /ai/.

b) Or has 13 consonant phonemes (p/, /t/. /d/, /k/, /’/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/, /f/, /v/,

/s/, /h/, /w/ and /y/) and Mk 15 consonant phonemes (/p/, /t/, /b/, /d/, /k/,

/g/, /’/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/, /f/, /s/, /h/, and /w/), all of which can have initial and

middle word positions.

c) In terms of the syllabication of the three languages, Or has more complex

syllabication than Ft and Mk. The complexity of Or is the result of the

language users’ tendency to delete vocal phonemes in the middle word

position and the dominant influence of foreign languages that contribute to

the enrichment of its vocabulary.

d) In terms of the structural aspect of the phonemes of words in the final

syllable, Or, Ft and Mk have open syllable pattern and diachronically, the

three languages are similarly vocalic languages.

2) Or, Ft and Mk have diachronically been convincingly proved to have a close

genetic relationship and constitute OFM language group. The family tree of

the genetic relationship of the three languages takes the split pattern with OF

and Mk as the next branches. It means that Or turns to be closer to Ft than to

Mk.

3) It has also been proved that Or has undergone phonological evolution both

internally and externally. The internal evolution involved among others: (a)

two vowels: /i/ and /e/ which underwent innovations in the form of split and

merger in Or, (b) the centralization of vocal phonemes in the language group.

The external evolution included: (a) enrichment of consonant phonemes, (b)

formation of clusters, (c) formation of homorganic nasal stop consonant

clusters, (d) enrichment of syllabication, (f) the shift from vocalic language

toward non-vocalic language as the result of a long history of language

development diachronically and the effect of borrowing from languages in the

region.

6.2 Suggestions

1) This study focuses on the phonological and lexical aspects. As a consequence,

it opens up room for morphological and syntactical aspects of the language

group.

2) The region that covers TAP and KB language group, West Papua and its

surrounding is a meeting region of AN and NAN languages that stores the

richness of a variety of linguistic and cultural phenomena. A broader and

deeper study that combines quantitative and qualitative data needs to be done

to discover NAN protolanguage in this region.

3) We need prevent the negative effects of the efforts made in the framework of

Indonesian language development. They should not have an implication in

the erosion that lead to the loss of natural identity on the part of ethnic

languages in the region.

4) It is expected that the findings of this study can encourage a concrete joint

effort from the Republic of Indonesia and East Timor in studying linguistic

and cultural aspects in TAP region and its surrounding areas.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the course of writing this dissertation the writer has obtained assistance

from many parties who have shown their active participation. On this occasion,

the writer would like to express his deep gratitude and high appreciation to Prof.

Dr. Aron Meko Mbete as supervisor, Dr. Ni Made Dhanawaty, M.S. and Dr. Inyo

Yos Fernandez as the first and second co-supervisor.

The writer would also like to extend his thanks to all of the teaching staff

and Board of Examiners in the Doctoral Program in Linguistics, the Postgraduate

Program of Udayana University: Prof. Drs. I Ketut Artawa, M.A. Ph.D., Prof. Dr.

N.L. Sutjiati Beratha, M.A., Prof. Dr. Made Budiarsa, M.A., Dr. A.A. Putu Putra,

M. Hum., and Dr. Made Sri Satyawati, S.S., M. Hum. for their invaluable

suggestions and comments for the improvement of this dissertation.

The writer would also like to thank the administration staff and all people

who have helped in the completion of his studies at the Doctoral Program in

Linguistics, the Postgraduate Program, Udayana University, Denpasar.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antilla, Raimo. 1972. An Itroduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics.

New York: Macmillan.

Antonsen, Elmer H. 1990. Phonological Change: Phonetic, Phonemic, and

Phonotactic Change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Arnason, Kristjan. 1980. Quantity in Historical Phonology: Islandic and Related

Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bever, T.G. and D.T. Langendoen. 1971. “A Dynamic Model of the Evolution of

Language.” Linguistic Inquiry 2: 433--460.

Blust, Robert A. 1971. “Historical in Indonesian.” Linguistics 9 Num. 2.

University of Hawaii.

Blust, Robert A. 1977. “Austronesian Culture History: Some Linguistic Inference

and Their Relations to the Archeological Record.” Nusa 4: 25--27.

Blust, Robert A. 1981. “Variation and Retension Rate among Austronesia

Language.” Makalah Seminar Linguistik Austronesia III. Bali.

Brandes, J.L.A. 1884. Bijdrage tot de verglijkende Klankleer der Westerse

Afdeeling von der. Utrecht: Maleische Polynesische Taalfamilie.

Bynon, Theodora. 1979. Historical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University

Press.

Capell, A. 1944. “Peoples and Languages of Timor.” Oceania. Vol. XIV No.

3. 311-337; No. 4. 19--48.

Capell, A. 1975. “The West Papua Phylum: General and Timor and Areas Further

West.” Dalam: S.A. Wurm (ed.). New Guinea Area Languages and
Language Study. Vol.1. Pacific Linguistics, Series C-No.38. The
Australian National University. p.667--716.

Cowan, H.K.J. 1965. “The Oirata Language.” Indo-Pacific Linguistic Studies.

Part I. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. Lingua
14:360--370.

Crowley, Terry. 1992. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Port Moresby:

University of Papua New Guinea Press.

Darwin, Charles. 2002. The Origin of Species. Terjemahan F. Susilohardo-Basuki

Harnowo. Yogyakarta: Ikon Eralitera.

Dempwolff, Otto. 1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen

Wortschatzes III: Austronesiaschen Worterverzeichnis. Hamburg:
Friederrichen, de Gruyter.

De Jong, J.P.B. De Josselin. 1937. Oirata, a Timorese Settlement on Kisar.

Studies in Indonesian Culture. Amsterdam: Uitgave van de N.V.
Noord-Hollandsche Uitgavers-Maatschappij.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: University

Press.

Dyen, Isodore. 1975. Linguistic Subgrouping and Lexicostatistics. Den Haag:

Mouten.

Dyen, Isodore. 1978. “The Positions of the Languages of Eastern Indonesia.”
Proccedings SICAL. Fascicle 1: 235--254, Pl C.61.

Faisal, Sanapiah. 1990. Penelitian Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar dan Aplikasi.

Malang: YA3.

Fernandez, Inyo Yos. 1996. Relasi Historis Kekerabatan Bahasa Flores. Flores:

Nusa Indah.

Fernandez, Inyo Yos. 2000. “On the Search of Linguistic Relationship between

Some of Austronesian and Non-Austronesian Languages in East
Indonesian.” Dalam: Sudaryanto dan Alex Horo Rambadeta (eds.).
Interelasi Bahasa dan Kebudayaan di Kawasan Non-Austronesia.
Yogyakarta: Pusat Studi Pasifik, Universitas Gajah Mada.

Fernandez, Inyo Yos. 2002. “Bahasa Kisar di Maluku Barat Daya: Sebuah

Tinjauan dari Perspektif Diakronis.” Makalah Kongres Linguistik
Nasional XI MLI. Denpasar.

Fernandez, Inyo Yos. 2010. “Subkelompok Bahasa Jayapura dan Implikasi

Kajiannya terhadap Status Subkelompok Bahasa Austro-Melanesia
serta Filum Papua dan Nugini.” Makalah Seminar Internasional
Austronsia V. Denpasar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1985. Historical Semantics: Historical Word-Formation.

Berlin: Mounton Publishers.

Gordon, W. Terrence. 2002. Saussure untuk Pemula. Terjemaham oleh Mei

Setiyanta. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. “Language and Evolutionary Theory.” Dalam:

Greenberg (ed.). Essays in Linguistics. University of Chicago Press.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1959. “Language and Evolution.” Dalam: Meggers (ed.).

Evolution and Anthropology: a Centennial Apraisal. Anthropological
Society of Woshington. p. 61--75.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1971. “The Indo-Pasific Hypothesis.” Dalam: Thomas A.

Seboek (ed.). Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol.8. Paris: Mouton
the Hague. p. 807--871.

Greenberg, Joseph H.1979. “Rethingking Linguistics Diacronically.” Language

55:275--90.

Grimes, Barbara F. 1988. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, Texas:
The Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.

Hockett, Charles F. 1963. A Course in Modern Linguistic. New York: The

Macmillan Company.

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1988. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Hodge, Carleton T. 1970. “The Linguistic Cycle.” Language Science 13: 1--7.

Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1974. Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction.

Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Jakobson, Roman. 1963. “Implications of Language Universals for Linguistics.”

Dalam: Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT
Press. p. 263--278.

Jeffers, Robert J. and Ilse Lehiste. 1979. Principles and Methods for Historical

Linguistics. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The
MIT Press.

Keraf, Gorys. 1991. Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka

Utama.

Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1993. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka

Utama.

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Lass, Roger (ed.). 1969. Approach to English Historical Linguistics An

Anthology. New York: Holt.

Lass, Roger. 1974. “Linguistic Orthogenesis: Scots vowel length and the English

length conspiracy.” Dalam: Anderson and Jones (eds.). Historical
Linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. p. 311--343.

Lass, Roger. 1990. “How to do Things with Jank: Exaptation in Languagr

Evolution.” Journal Linguistics 26: 79--102.

Lehmann, Winfred P. 1966. Historical Linguistic an Introduction. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Mahsun. 2010. Genolinguistik. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Mandala, Halus. 1999. “Pengelompokan Genetis Bahasa Kairui, Waimoa, dan
Naueti di Timor Timur” (tesis). Denpasar: Universitas Udayana.

Mandala, Halus. 2000. “Hubungan Genetis Bahasa-Bahasa Timor.” Laporan Hasil

Penelitian Program DCRG Proyek Penelitian untuk Pengembangan
Pascasarjana (URGE).

Matthews, P.H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistic. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Mbete, Aron Meko. 1991. “Rekonstruksi Protobahasa Bali-Sasak-Sumbawa.”

Dalam: Berita ILDEP II. Jakarta.

Mbete, Aron Meko. 2002. Metode Linguistik Diakronis. Denpasar: Universitas

Udayana.

McMahon, April M.S. 1999. Understanding Languge Change. Cambridge

University Press.

Moleong, Lexy J. 1997. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja

Karya.

Monteiro, Fransiskus. 1985. “Kamus Bahasa Tetun-Indonesia.” Rawamangun,

Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa.

Nerlich, Brigitte. 1989. “The Evolution of the Concept of ‘Linguistic Evolution’

in the 19th and 20th Century.” Lingua 77: 101--112.

Parera, Jos Daniel. 1991. Kajian Linguistik Umum, Historis Komparatif dan

Tipologi Struktural. Jakarta : Erlangga.

Penzl, Herbert. 1969. “The Evidence for Phonemic Change.” Dalam: Lass (ed.).

Approach to English Historical Linguistics An Anthology. New
York: Holt. p.10--24.

Pike, Kenneth L. 1957. Axiom and Procedures for Reconstructions in

Comparative Linguistic: an Experimental Syllabus. California:
Summer Institute of Linguistic.

Rickford, John R. 1986. “Sosial Contact and Linguistic Diffution: Hiberno-

English and New World Black English.” Language 62: 245--289.

Samarin, William J. 1988. Ilmu Bahasa Lapangan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.

Stevick, Robert D. 1963. “The Biological Model and Historical Linguistics.”
Language 39: 159--169.

Stokhof, W.A.L. (ed.). 1980. Holle Lists:Vocabularies in Languages of Indonesia.

Vol. 1: Introductory Volume. PL. D. 17.

Sudaryanto. 1988. Metode Linguistik. Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University

Press.

Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta

Wacana University Press.

Swadesh, Morris. ”Lexicostatistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts”,

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96: hal.452-463.

Swadesh, Morris. 1972. The Origin and Diversification of Language. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Voorhoeve, C.L. 1984. “Comparative Linguistics and the West Papuan Phylum.”

Dalam: Masinambow (ed.). Maluku dan Irian Jaya. Buletin Leknas
Vpl III No.1. Jakarta: LEKN/LIPI.

Wurm, S.A. and B. Wilson. 1978. English Finderlist of Reconstructions in

Austronesian Languages (Post-Brandstetter). Canberra, Australia:
The Australian National University.

Wurm, S.A., C.L. Voorhoeve and K.A. McElhanon. 1975. “The Trans-New

Guinea Phylum in General.” Dalam: Wurm (ed). Papuan Languages
and the New Guinea Linguistic Science. Australia: The Australian
National University. p. 299--322.

Wurm, S.A. tth. “Austronesian and Non-Austronesian (Papua) Languages in

Contact: Some Notes.” Dalam: S.A. Wurm (ed.). Linguistic and
Literary Studies. Paris: The Hague. p. 87--109.

Wurm, S.A. 1975. “The Application of the Comparative Method to Papuan

Languages: General and Mainland.” Dalam: S.A. Wurm (ed.)
Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Science.
Australia: The Australian National University. p. 237--261.