HOW TO SAY PLACES IN MANGGARAIAN LANGUAGE: CULTURAL LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES

Kletus Erom Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris FKIP UNWIRA , NTT

Abstract Manggaraian Language (ML) is one of the main local languages spoken by people in Great Manggarai: Manggarai , West , and , of Province. It has four dialects: East Manggarai Dialect, Middle Manggarai Dialect, S–H Manggarai Dialect, and West Manggarai Dialect. Middle Manggarai Dialect is considered as the standard one for some reasons. ML has unique grammatical feature used to say places where possibly someone or something posits. Such grammatical feature includes the lexical words of cardinal points, like le ‘south’ lau ‘north’, sale ‘west, and awo ‘east’, and some other lexical words showing directions, like wa ‘below/beneath’, eta ‘above/on/ over’, sili ‘ below’, sina ‘beyond/on the other side’, etc. This grammatical feature is one of many plays of verbal symbols in ML that is based in imagery of the Manggaraian Language Speakers (MLS). What those words are, how they are used in ML grammatical structure, and what their meanings are as decided by the cultural imagery of the MLS is the main aim of presenting this article.

Key Words: cultural linguistics, cultural imagery, Manggaraian Language, places, directions, cardinal points.

Abstrak Bahasa manggarai adalah salah satu bahasa lisan daerah penutur Manggarai besar, Kabupaten Manggarai, Kabupaten Manggarai Barat, dan Kabupaten Manggarai Timur, provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur. Bahasa Manggarai memiliki empat dialek: dialek Manggarai Timur, dialek Manggarai tengah, dialek Manggarai S-H, dan dialek Manggarai barat. Dialek Manggarai tengah tergolong sebagai bahasa standar dengan beberapa alasan. Bahasa Manggarai (BM) memiliki fitur gramatikal unik yang digunakan untuk menyebutkan tempat dimana posisi seseorang atau sesuatu berada.Fitur gramatikal tersebut meliputi kata leksikal yang menunjukkan mata angin seperti le ‘selatan’, lau ‘utara’, sale ‘barat’, dan awo ‘timur’, dan beberapa kata leksikal lain yang menunjukkan arah, seperti wa ‘bawah/ di bawah’, eta ‘atas/ke atas’, sili ‘di bawah/ke bawah’, sina ‘di luar/di sisi lain’, dan sebagainya. Fitur gramatikal ini adalah salah satu dari banyak permainan simbol verbal dalam bahasa Manggarai (BM) yang berdasarkan perumpamaan bahasa penutur Manggarai. Apa kata-kata tersebut, bagaimana mereka menggunakan bahasa tersebut menurut struktur gramatikalnya, dan apa makna yang diputuskan melalui perumpamaan budaya dari penutur bahasa Manggarai tersebut, hal tersebut merupakan tujuan utama.

Kata Kunci: linguistik kebudayaan, perumpamaan budaya, bahasa Manggarai, tempat, arah, mata angin

1. Introduction Manggaraian Language (ML) is the main local language spoken by people in three regencies: Manggarai Regency, , and East Manggarai Regency, located in the most western tip of Island, East Nusa Tenggara Province. It is commonly called “Great Manggarai“ (Manggarai Raya). Mostly the people of the three regencies speak Manggaraian Language in many and various kinds of their social affairs. ML has unique and specific linguistic features in saying places where someone or something possibly exists. Such linguistic features include the lexical words of cardinal 23 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 points, like le ‘south’ lau ‘north’, sale ‘west, and awo ‘east’, and those of directions like wa ‘below/beneath’, sili ‘ below’, eta ‘above/on/over’, sina ‘beyond/on the other side’, etc. They are compulsorily used to show position or place of something. This linguistic phenomenon is a kind of lexicogrammatical system in ML. This is one of many plays of verbal symbols in ML that are based in imagery (Palmer, 1996: 3) of the MLS. On the bases of the linguistic phenomenon above, the writer was motivated to seek what cultural imageries that base the lexicogrammatical system of saying places where possibly someone/something exists. This must figure out the cultural imagery of the MLS. It is formulated in a title “How to Say Places in Manggaraian Language: Cultural Linguistic Perspectives”. This topic is specified into two problems. (1) What are the lexical words or lexicons used to say places in ML? (2) What cultural imagery of the MLS that bases the lexicons expressing places in ML?

2. Review of Related Studies, Concepts, and Theory Erom (2010: 55 – 61) discussed about nominal marking system in Manggaraian Language (ML). He syntactically and semantically found four kinds of Nominal Markers (NMs) of ML. (1) NMs in forms of Personal Pronouns (PP): hau ‘you SG’, hia/hi ‘he/ she’, meu ‘you-PLUR’, and ise ‘they’ mark Proper Nouns (PN) as the Subject/Agent or Object/Patient bearing the meaning of subject or object position. (2) NMs in forms of de/ di/dise mark the nouns: Common Noun (CN), Proper Nouns (PN), and Personal Pronouns (PN) as the possessor of the possessed noun bearing the meaning of possession. (3) NMs in the forms of le/li/lise mark the nouns (CN, PN, PP) as the agent diathesis of an action targeted to a noun as the patient diathesis bearing the meaning of an agent diathesis. And (4) NMs in the forms of ge/gi/gise mark the noun (CN, PN, PP) added/grouped to another noun or become the target/locality of an action taking place bearing the meaning of addition/grouping or the target/locality of an action. The four NMs are grouped into two based on the noun marked, i.e. Common Nominal Markers (CNM), covering de, le, and ge and Proper Nominal Markers (PNM), covering NMs in forms of PP, PNM of possessive di/dise, PNM of agent diathesis li/lise, and PNM of combined/targeted gi/gise. The four PNMs are also grouped into two based on the number of the proper noun (PN) marked, i.e the singular PNM: hau, hia/hi, di, li, gi, and the plural PNM: meu, ise, dise, lise, gise. The NMS of ML bears a number of cultural imageries: differentiation, animacy, honorific, solidarity, identity, prestige, democracy, and work. Initial consonant, especially in proper names, is considered impolite, cruel, strong, energetic, while initial vowels polite or gentle. Erom (2011: 151 – 161) wrote about how to see the past, the present, and the future times of the Manggaraian Speech Community (MSC) lexicogrammatically expressed in ML. Various lexicons used to show the past, the present, and the future in ML bear a number of cultural imageries. (1) To show the past time the lexicon one ‘inside’ is used, for example, one sua ‘two days ago’, etc. The past time is seen as something having been put inside of a space, in the box, for example. Something put in the box cannot be moved. It means that the past cannot be changed. It is also shown by the lexicon olo ‘in front of’, etc. for the longer past time period, for example, one minggu olo ‘last week’. Something standing or put in front can be clearly seen. It means that the past is something clearly seen in the sense that it has been historically experienced, known, recognized. (2) To show the present time the lexicon ho’o ‘this’ is used, for example, leso ho’o ‘this day/ 24 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 today’, etc. The present time is seen as an entity standing near to the speaker. Something near is clearly seen in the sense that it is still stepped on, experienced. (3) To show the future time the lexicon musi ‘behind/at the back’ is used, for example, minggu musi ‘next week’, etc. The future time is seen as something put behind. Something put behind cannot be seen. It means that the future cannot be seen in the sense that it cannot be predicted, or unknown. It figures out the limitedness of human being, especially the MSC in controlling the future. Such lexicogrammatical system is based in the cultural imagery of the MSC. Erom (2011: 117 – 128) discussed about the word pair system in Manggaraian Language (ML). This system is believed to be based in the cultural imagery of the Manggaraian Speech Community (MSC). Various word pairs of ML were found. (1) The word pair wina – rona ‘wife – husband’ is based in cultural imagery of protection, respect, and appreciation to female gender. (2) The word pair ase – ka’e ‘younger brother – older brother’ is based in cultural imagery of protection, respect, and appreciation to the younger or the minority group. (3) The word pair ame – anak ‘father – daughter/ son’ is based in cultural imagery of respect and appreciation to parents or the elders. (4) The word pair sina – ce’e ‘beyond (other side) – here (my own side)’ is based in cultural imagery of respect and appreciation to other groups. (5) The word pair in le – lau ‘south – north’ is based in cultural imagery of priority, respect, appreciation, thanks to the cardinal point of le ‘south’ for some reasons. The cardinal point le ‘south’ is the place or heaven of God and Ancestors and the source of living, i.e. source of waters or rivers for plants, animals, and human being. (6) The word pair sale – awo ‘west – east’ is based in cultural imagery of priority, respect, appreciation, and thanks to the cardinal point of sale ‘west’ for some reasons. The rainy season occurs simultaneously with the west season marked by the wind blowing from the west that can be seen in the clouds in the sky moving from the west to the east. The rain fall makes rivers full of water that is very useful for the living and the growth of living creatures: plants, animals, and human being. Erom (2014: 197 - 207) discussed about the different order of Nouns and their modifiers in English and BahasaIndonesia. He found that the order of the Noun referring to an entity and the Adjective referring to a quality is different in Bahasa and English. For example, we have big house in English but rumah besar in Indonesian. In short construction is Noun – Adjective or Entity – Quality. It means that the phrase structure is different. This different phrase structure order is one of the plays of verbal symbols that are based in imagery of their speakers. So, different order shows different imageries between English speakers and Indonesian speakers. In the phrases big house (English) or rumah besar (Indonesian) big or besar has syntactic task of showing the quality of an entity. House or rumah has syntactic task of representing an entity. House or rumah is an entity where people live in. An entity in form of a house is defined as a building made for people to live in (Hornby, 1989: 604). In English, big house, quality comes first andentity comes next, while in Indonesian rumah besar, entity comes first andquality comes next. Syntactic rule says that if a speaker wants to emphasize one syntactic aspect in a clause then he/she can do it by putting it at the beginning of a clause. This is the case of passive in English or other languages. Another syntactic theory, proposed by Halliday (in Eggins, 2004: 296 – 326) entitled the grammar of textual meaning: THEME, a clause is analyzed on THEME and RHEME. The syntactic aspect that is emphasized or considered important is put at the beginning of a clause/a sentence. It means that the aspect becomes the THEME or TOPIC. The first three studies discuss about linguistic phenomena in ML highlighted 25 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 from the Theory of Cultural Linguistics (TCL). The last study does not talk about ML but it highlights the problem from the TCL. The four studies discuss different linguistic evidences in ML and Indonesian but they are all highlighted from the TCL. These four studies inspired the writer to write another linguistic feature of ML but still highlighted from the same TCL in general and the TCL in grammatical structure in particular. To understand, direct, and limit the scope of the study, a number of previous related basic concepts were defined. Such concepts include say, position, direction, something, Manggaraian Language, and cultural linguistic perspectives. Say is a verb used to pronounce words, or sounds, to express a thought, opinion, or suggestion, or to state a fact or instruction (McIntosh, 2013: 1486). Position is a noun used to say the place where something or someone is, often in relation to other things (McIntosh, 2013: 1189). Direction is a noun used to say the position toward which someone or something moves or faces (McIntosh, 2013: 427). Something is a pronoun used to say an object, situation, quality, or action that is not exactly known or stated (McIntosh, 2013: 1486). In this article, these four words refer to the words used to say the position or show the place where something or someone exists. Manggaraian Language is one of the main local languages spoken by people in Great Manggarai: Manggarai Regency, West Manggarai Regency, and East Manggarai Regency, in East Nusa Tenggara Province. As has been stated before that ML has four dialects: East Manggarai Dialect, Middle Manggarai Dialect, S–H Manggarai Dialect, and West Manggarai Dialect. Middle Manggarai Dialect is considered as the standard one for some reasons. Although the data for this study are only taken from Middle Manggarai Dialect, the result can be applicable or generalized to the three other dialects. Cultural linguistic perspective is a linguistic theory highlighting language and culture. The theory of cultural linguistics (TCL), proposed by Gary B. Palmer in 1996, is the synthesis of cognitive linguistics with Boasian linguistics, ethnosemantics, and the ethnography of speaking (Palmer, 1996: 5). The synthesis of the three linguistic traditions is termed cultural linguistics (Palmer, 1996: 5, 36). Cultural linguistics is intended to connote a broad interest in language and culture (Palmer, 1996: 36). The TCL pays specific attention to imagery role in each language expression. Language expressions include systems of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, metaphor and metonymy, discourse, and narrative. All such language expressions are based in imagery. Some theoretical statements of cultural linguistics quoted from Palmer (1996) are presented in the following.

1) Language is the play of verbal symbols that are based in imagery. Imagery is what we see in our mind’s eye, but it is also the taste of a mango, the feel of walking in a tropical downpour, the music of Mississippi Masala. Our imaginations dwell on experiences obtained through all the sensory modes, and then we talk (Palmer, 1996: 3).

This is the main and primary definition in the theory of cultural linguistics (TCL). It is so because it starts by defining language, the main entity of linguistics. This definition subsumes all other theoretical statements pertaining to the TCL. Other definitions are expended and specified from this definition. This definition asserts two main points: the play of verbal symbols and imagery. The play of verbal symbols deals with the physical realizations of language used in communication. The physical realizations of language used in communication are in sounds, word forms, words order, conveying certain meaning. They belong to the

26 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 grammatical aspects of language which cover phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. The physical realization of language is also played in forms of the scenarios of discourse and narratives, and the mapping of metaphor and metonymy. The plays of verbal symbols are based in cultural imagery of the language speakers. Imagery is in human mind. Imagery or cultural imagery resides in human brain, and not on the lexicogrammar of a language or other cultural materials made by human. Human brain is a tool for thinking. Imagery resides in human thoughts. Human mind identify all things sensed by the sensory organs. Everything seen by the eyes, heard by the ears, smelled by the nose, tasted by the tongue, and fell or touched by the skin, is recorded or sensed by the mind. Imagery or images are mental representation that begins as conceptual analogs of immediate perceptual experience from the peripheral sensory organs (1996: 47). Sensory organs include eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin. In line with this, there exist imageries of visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory, and temperature (Palmer, 1996: 46). The prototypic function of imagery is to represent the environment (Palmer, 1996: 46). It goes in line with Eggins (2004: 11), saying that the fundamental purpose that language has evolved is to enable us (people) to interact in order to make meanings: to make sense of the world and of each other. So, in doing studies highlighted from the theory of cultural linguistics, the researchers actually want to find out two things: linguistic features of the language investigated and cultural imagery of the native speakers of languages. Linguistic features are first analyzed. Then the cultural imagery or mental imagery of the speakers is analyzed. Linguistic features are the gate to enter the cultural imagery. Another theoretical statement of Palmer that talks about the coverage and the applicability of the TCL in investigating language is presented in the following part.

2) The theme of imagery in language provides a basis for examining a surprisingly wide range of linguistic topics. It applies not only to narrative and figurative language, but also to the semantics of words and grammatical constructions, to discourse, and even to phonology. In the past, these linguistic domains have been subjected to disparate and mutually inconsistent theories as though they differ in kind, when they really only represent different points of view. They can best be understood in terms of a single theory of culturally defined mental imagery – a cultural theory of linguistic meaning. In this cultural linguistics, phonemes are heard as verbal images arranged in complex categories, words acquire meanings that are relative to image-schemas, scenes, and scenarios; clauses are image- based constructions; discourse emerges as a process governed by the reflexive imagery of itself; and worldview subsumes it all (Palmer, 1006: 4).

This theoretical statement explains the applicability of the TCL emphasizing the existence of imagery in various language expressions. The TCL can be applied in analyzing a wide range of linguistic topics: narrative, figurative language or metaphor and metonymy, lexical semantics, grammatical constructions, discourse, even phonology. This delineates that whatever the forms of language expressions are, both microlinguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics) and macrolinguistics (sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, literature, cultural linguistics, etc.) are based in imagery. Imagery is the base for all forms of linguistics expressions. Therefore, in analyzing such linguistics expressions, the imagery should not be left out because as analogized by Palmer (1996: 147) that linguistic expression is only the ‘cart’ before the ‘horse’. The language expression is only the cart which is dragged along or pulled by the horse ‘imagery’. Just as the horse make the cart move, imagery makes the language come to the surface or

27 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 exist. Language expression is based in imagery. Another theoretical statement talks about working with the TCL in investigating linguistic phenomena. It is completely stated in the following theoretical statement.

3) Cultural linguistics may require “thick description” (Geertz, 1973; Sherzer, 1983). Determining the meaning of discourse requires attention to the identities and histories of discourse participants, as well as to the immediate previous history of the discourse under interpretation, especially as these are construed by the participants. But determining what is sufficient, pertinent, and meaningful is often a matter of perspective and social position. Therefore, the determination of meaning must be interpretive, taking into account speakers’ and listeners’ own construal (Palmer, 1996: 38).

The theoretical statement above discusses about how to work with the TCL in investigating linguistic phenomena. The main idea is that to know the cultural imagery of the native language speakers can be done through interpretation on the verbal symbols, and in this study the cultural imagery of MLS interpreted from the verbal symbols showing or saying places in ML. This study discusses about how to say places in ML. To say places in ML is expressed in certain lexicogrammar. So, the following is the theoretical statements of cultural linguistics highlighting grammatical structure of language.

4) Worldview cannot be understood without language. It is fundamentally produced by linguistically mediated human thought (Ridington in Palmer, 1996: 113). A worldview has all the complexity of life itself. To the extent that it subsumes the schematic imagery of linguistic semantics. World view can be seen as an important determinant of grammar. Thus, the study of grammars can be regarded as the study of world view constrained to linguistics symbols (Palmer, 1996: 114). We see worldview as a part of culture, and culture – including language – is a society’s entire stock of traditional knowledge, an accumulating social edifice of partially shared imagery (Palmer, 1996: 116).

5) The grammatical constructions we use usually form our ideas about the world (Whorf in Kövecses, 2006: 245). Some cognitive linguists also stated that grammar reflects the way its speakers schematically conceptualize the world (Kövecses, 2006: 244). Many of cognitive processes that we find in cognition and culture can be found in what is called grammar of language. The grammar of language is a complex cognitive system which its principle and process work together with cognitive system in general (Kövecses, 2006: 295).

The theoretical statement above shows very clearly that language is a tool for thinking of human being. Language forms the ideas of its speakers. Through language use we can understand the worldview of certain people or ethnic. It is understandable because language is the play of verbal symbols that are based in imagery (Palmer, 1996: 3). Thus the worldview of MLS can be understood within ML system. Certain worldview MLS can be understood in the grammatical structure of saying or showing places in ML.

3. Methodology Perry (2005: 72 – 82) classifies research designs of a study into three continuums: basic – applied, qualitative – quantitative, and exploratory – confirmatory. This study belongs to the basic continuum because it tends to be theoretical. It theorizes the existence of the imagery of the MLS crystallized in the grammatical structure of saying the places in ML. This study also belongs to qualitative continuum because it works to uncover information from information-rich samples. This study also belongs to confirmatory continuum because it intends to confirm Sapir-Whorf hypothesis saying that the language determines the way the speakers perceive the world. It is also to confirm the strength of

28 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 the TCL saying that language is the play of verbal symbols that are based in imagery. All language expression, including the grammatical structure of saying the places in ML is based in the cultural imagery of the MLS. The data in form of the grammatical structure of saying the places in ML were obtained through observation and note taking. The sentences containing the grammatical structure of saying the places in ML obtained from observation and note taking were listed. The data having been obtained and listed have been confirmed with credible informants by having an interview. The location where the data were obtained from was Manggarai Regency, in the western tip of Flores Island, East Nusa Tenggara Province. However, the result of the study still can be applicable to the two other regencies descended from Manggarai Regency: West Manggarai Regency and East Manggarai Regency for Middle Manggarai Dialect is spoken by the people of Manggarai Regency. Cultural linguistic study attempts to seek and find out the cultural imagery of the MLS revealed in the grammatical structure of saying places in ML. This was done by analyzing the grammatical structure of saying places in ML. The grammar found by observing are listed and translated into English by gloss and idiomatic gloss. Gloss translation intends to find out the lexical meaning of the words used in the grammatical structure. Idiomatic gloss intends to find out the real meaning of the grammatical structure in English, the language used to describe this study. The analysis started from the analysis of the linguistic system, i.e. the grammatical structure of saying the places in ML. It flows into finding out kinds of lexicons used to say places. From the systems the formal linguistic meaning of the lexicons can be revealed. Finally, still basing on such meaning, the cultural imagery of the MLS was analyzed in the way of interpretation.

4. The Linguistic Features of Saying Places of Something in Manggaraian Language and the Cultural Imagery of the Manggaraian Language Speakers There are some lexical words or lexicons used to say position or place of something in ML. This is a kind of lexicogrammatical system in ML. The lexicogrammatical system is believed to be based on the cultural imagery of MLS. In general, there are two levels of analyses: microlinguistic and macrolinguistic. Microlinguistic analysis is guided with the description of syntactic theory. This intends to uncover the linguistic features of saying places or positions in ML. To realize this, the data are presented. Macrolinguistic level of analysis is highlighted with the TCL. It intends to uncover the cultural imageries that base the linguistic features saying places or positions of someone or something in ML. The detail discussion follows.

4.1 Data Presentation The analysis begins with data presentation. There are twenty-four chunks of data operating on the grammatical structure saying places or position of something in ML. It results in identifying the linguistic features saying places or position of something in ML. Then the cultural imagery of the MLS that bases the linguistic feature is discussed in a specific subchapter. It results in identifying the cultural imagery of MLS that bases the linguistic features saying places or position in ML. The data in detail follow below.

[4.1] ngo le [ngo lé] ‘go south’ Ngo le -k aku.

29 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475

go south Ruteng-PRO I SG copy I ‘I am going (went) to Ruteng.’

[4.2] ka’eng le [ka’éng lé] ‘live south’ Ka’éng le Ruteng-k aku. live south Ruteng-PRO I SG copy I ‘I am living (lived) in Ruteng.’

[4.3] kole le mai [kolé lé mai] ‘come back from south’ Kole le mai Ruteng-g aku. come back south from Ruteng-POS I SG copy I ‘I am coming (came) back from Ruteng.’

[4.4] ngo lau [ngo lau] ‘go north’ Ngo lau Pagal-h hau. go north Pagal-PRO II SG copy you ‘You are going (went) to Pagal.’

[4.5] ka’éng lau [ka’éng lau] ‘north’ Ka’éng lau Pagal-h hau. live south Ruteng-PRO I SG copy you ‘You are living (lived) in Pagal.’

[4.6] kolé lau mai [kolé lau mai] ‘come back from north’ Kolé lau mai Pagal-m hau. come back south from Pagal-POS II SG copy you ‘You are coming (came) back from Ruteng.’

[4.7] ngo sale [ngo salé] ‘go west’ Ngo sale Labuan-y hia. go west Labuan-PRO III SG copy he/she ‘He/She going (went) to Labuan.’

[4.8] kaeng sale [ka’éng salé] ‘live west’ Kaeng sale Labuan-y hia. go west Labuan-PRO III SG copy he/she ‘He/She living (lived) in Labuan.’

[4.9] kole sale mai [kolé salé mai] ‘come back from west’ Kole sale mai Labuan-n hia. come back west from Labuan-POS III SG copy he/she ‘He/She coming (came) back from Labuan.’

[4.10] ngo awo [ngo awo] ‘go east’ Ngo awo Lambaleda-km ami. go east Lambaleda-PRO I PL copy we (EXCL) ‘We are going (went) to Lambaleda.’

[4.11] ka’eng awo [ka’éng awo] ‘live east’ Ka’eng awo Lambaleda-km ami. live east Lambaleda-PRO I PL copy we (EXCL) ‘We are living (lived) in Lambaleda.’

[4.12] kole awo mai [kolé awo mai] ‘come back from east’ Kole awo mai Lambaleda-gm ami. come back north from Pagal-POS I PL copy we (EXCL) ‘They are coming (came) back from Lambaleda.’

30 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475

[4.13] ngo wa [ngo wa] ‘below’ Ngo wa Reok-m meu. go below Reok-PRO II PL copy you ‘You are going (went) to Reok.’

[4.14] ka’eng wa [ka’éng wa] ‘live below’ Ka’eng wa Reok-m meu. live below Reok-PRO II PL copy you ‘You are living (lived) in Reok.’

[4.15] kole wa mai [kolé wa mai] ‘come back from below’ Kole wa mai Reok-s meu. come back below from Ruteng-POS II PL copy you ‘You are coming (came) back from Reo.’

[4.16] ngo eta [ngo éta] ‘go above/over/on’ Ngo eta Bajawa-s ise. go above Bajawa-PRO III PL they ‘They are going (went) to Bajawa.’

[4.17] ka’eng eta [ka’éng éta] ‘live above/over/on’ Ka’eng eta Bajawa-s ise. go above Bajawa-PRO III PL they ‘They are living (lived) in Bajawa.’ [4.18] kole eta mai [kolé éta mai] ‘come back from north’ Kole eta mai Bajawa-d ise. come back above from Bajawa-POS III PL copy they ‘They are coming (came) back from Bajawa.’

[4.19] ngo sina [ngo sina] ‘beyond’ Ngo sina Rawang-t ite. go beyond Rawang PRO I PL copy we (INCL) ‘We are going (went) to Rawang.’

[4.20] ka’eng sina [ka’éng sina] ‘live beyond’ Ka’eng sina Rawang-t ite. live beyond Rawang PRO I SG copy we (INCL) ‘We are living (lived) in Rawang.’

[4.21] kole sina mai [kolé sina mai] ‘come back from beyond’ Kole sina mai Rawang-d ite. go back beyond from Rawang-POS I SG copy we (INCL) ‘We are coming (came) back from Rawang.’

[4.22] ngo sili [ngo sili] ‘go below’ Ngo sili Borong-km ami. go below Borong PRO I PL copy we ‘We are going (went) to Borong.’

[4.23] ka’eng sili [ka’éng sili] ‘live below’ Ka’eng sili Borong-km ami. go below Borong PRO I PL copy we ‘We are living (lived) in Borong.’

[4.24] kole sili mai [kolé sili mai] ‘come back from below’ Kole sili mai Borong-gm ami.

31 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475

go back below from Borong-POS I PL copy we ‘We are coming (came) back from Borong.’

[4.25] mai ce’e [mai cé’é] ‘come here’ Mai ce’e Ruteng-s ise. come here Cibal-PRO III PL copy they ‘They are coming (came) here to Ruteng.’

[4.26] ka’eng ce’e [ka’éng cé’é] ‘live here’ Ka’eng ce’e Ruteng-s ise. live here Ruteng-PRO III PL copy they ‘They are living (lived) here in Ruteng.’

[4.27] kole ce’e mai [kolé cé’é mai] ‘come back from here’ Kole ce’e mai Ruteng-d ise. go back here from Ruteng-POS III PL copy they ‘They are coming (came) back from Ruteng here.’

4.2 Some Discussion Going to the Finding The data [4.1] to [4.27] show some grammatical features of saying places in ML. Of course, these grammatical features or linguistic features are primarily discussed in this article. Other linguistic features are neglected for the time being. They can be discussed in other chance and other media. The data show that mentioning the places, like Ruteng, Pagal, Labuan, etc. are preceded by the cardinal points like le ‘south, lau ‘north’, sale ‘west’, awo ‘east’ and the words showing directions, like wa ‘below’, eta ‘above’, and sili ‘below’, sina ‘beyond’, and ce’e ‘here’ in ML. The words referring to cardinal points or directions collocate with the words ngo ‘go’, ka’eng ‘live/stay’, and kole ----- mai ‘come back from -----‘ with the names of places. Thus we have the following expressions, as shown in the data with their literal translation: ngo le Ruteng ‘go south Ruteng’, ka’eng le Ruteng ‘live south Ruteng’, kole le mai Ruteng ‘come back from south Ruteng, ngo lau Pagal ‘go north Pagal’, ka’eng lau Pagal ‘live north Pagal’, kole lau mai Pagal ‘come back from north Pagal’, ngo sale Labuan ‘go west Labuan’, ka’eng sale Labuan ‘live west Labuan’, kole sale mai Labuan ‘come back from west Labuan’, ngo awo Lambaleda ‘go east Lambaleda’, ka’eng awo Lambaleda ‘live east Lambaleda’, kole awo mai Lambaleda ‘come back from east Lambaleda’, ngo wa Reok ‘go below Reok’, ka’eng wa Reok ‘live below Reok’, kole wa mai Reok ‘come back from below Reok’, ngo eta Bajawa ‘go above Bajawa’, ka’eng eta Bajawa ‘live above Bajawa’, kole eta mai Bajawa ‘come back from above Bajawa’, ngo sina Rawang ‘go beyond Rawang’, ka’eng sina Rawang ‘live beyond Rawang’, kole sina mai Rawang ‘come back from beyond Rawang’, ngo sili Borong ‘go below Borong’, ka’eng sili Borong ‘live below Borong’, kole sili mai Borong ‘come back from below Borong’, mai ce’e Ruteng ‘come here Ruteng’, ka’eng ce’e Ruteng ‘live here Ruteng’, and kole ce’e mai Ruteng ‘come back from here Ruteng’. The words of the cardinal points and the words of directions in ML precede the places. They are equivalently translated into English as prepositions to: NGO + CARDINAL POINTS/DIRECTION + PLACE ‘go to’, in: LIVE + CARDINAL POINTS/DIRECTION + PLACE ‘live in’, and from: KOLE + CARDINAL POINTS/ DIRECTION + MAI + PLACE ‘come back from’ or pergi ke ‘go to’, tinggal di ‘live in’, and pulang dari ‘come back from’ in Bahasa Indonesia. The questions may arise in our mind as to why saying the places where someone

32 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475 or something possibly exists are obligatorily preceded by the grammatical structure consisting of the lexical words of the cardinal points and the lexical words of directions? This linguistic phenomenon exists of course is based in the cultural imagery of MLS. It will be discussed in Subchapter 4.3.

4.3 The Cultural Imagery of the MLS that Bases the Linguistic Features of Showing Places We have seen the grammatical structure or the linguistic features of saying places in ML. This grammatical structure is of course based in the cultural imagery of the MLS. The places pointed must be preceded by the cardinal points and the words showing directions. The grammatical systems of saying places expressed by the cardinal points and the words showing directions existing in ML are the play of verbal symbols that are based in the cultural imagery of the MLS. To show or to say places in ML must be preceded by the words referring to the cardinal points and other words showing directions. It is an obligatory grammatical structure in ML used to say places. If saying places were not preceded by the words referring to the cardinal points or other words showing directions or places in ML, the grammatical structure would be ungrammatical. It is not acceptable in the cultural sense of the MLS. This means that the places are very important in the cultural imagery of the MLS. For they are very important, so in saying or showing them, they are obligatorily preceded by the lexicons referring to cardinal points or directions. The cardinal points and other lexical words showing directions are very frequently used to say places where possibly someone or something exists in ML. The cardinal points used to say the place of someone or something makes it very clear which thing is meant by the speaker. So, the places that are obligatorily preceded by the cardinal points or other lexical words are very important in the cultural imagery of the MLS. Saying places by being preceded by the cardinal points or other lexical words showing directions make the speech opponent(s) not be in an ambiguity condition. All in all, this grammatical system shows the way of thinking of the MLS. The way they think and say or show the place or position of someone or something is very important. For it is very important, it should be informed by someone, by a speaker, to someone else, a hearer or a speech opponent, definitely and precisely by saying or showing the place or position using the lexical words of the cardinal points and the lexical words of directions. They show the places of something very definitely by mentioning their direction from the speaker, whether it is in the south, north, west, east, below, above, beyond, or the same places with the speaker. For example, someone says “Ngo le Ruteng-k aku” ‘I am going (went) to Ruteng’. This sentence means that the speaker’s position when saying the sentence is in the north of Ruteng and Ruteng is in the south of the speaker’s position or place. Another example is “Ngo awo Kupang-s ise” ‘They are going (went) to Kupang’. From this sentence we can invert that Kupang is in the east and the place, say Manggarai, is in the west of Kupang, the speaker’s position when saying the sentence. This grammatical structure will be more definitive-informative and needed very much in saying “Ngo lau mbarud” used to invite someone who has never visited or gone to the inviter’s house before. The invitee will know clearly that the position of the inviter’s house is in the north seen from the place or position where he is invited.

33 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475

5. Conclusion and Suggestions Going in line with the result of the data analysis, study aims, and the benefits of the study, a number of conclusions and suggestions would be offered. It can be concluded that the theory of cultural linguistics (TCL) can be applied in uncovering the cultural imagery of MLS through the grammatical structure of saying or showing places in ML. This means that the grammatical structure is very important in the cultural imagery of the MLS. Places and their positions or directions in the world space is very important to say or show definitely or precisely so the speech opponent or listeners will understand and know well as supposed to be intended by the speaker. This is the ideology of the MLS embodied in the ML grammatical structure in saying places. In line with the significance of the study and the result of the data analysis, a number of suggestions would be offered to many sides in accordance with their competence and capacity. The experts of linguistics, culture, cultural linguistics, and other related subjects should do continued study or similar study to confirm and extend for all linguistic expressions are based in the cultural imagery of their speakers that can be perpetuated, modified, and applied in daily life. The local governments of Manggarai Regency, East Nusa Tenggara Province, and Central Government of Republic of Indonesia should allocate the fund for local language research, seminar, and workshop. The MLS themselves should attempt and feel proud having and speaking ML in proper situation, living side by side with the national language, Bahasa Indonesia, and the foreign languages, such as English, Chinese, Japanese, and other foreign languages. They should be realized of living tolerantly in multilingual and multicultural situations in this global era. The grammatical structure of saying places or position in ML is a good linguistic habit. This can be considered as a local wisdom of MLS that can be modified to be the way of life of the MLS in saying or showing very clearly the ideas or information to someone.

References

Arts, Bas and April McMahon. 2006. The Handbook of English Linguistics (eds). USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bonvillain, Nancy. 2003. Language, Culture, and Communication, 4th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-hall Inc.

Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2nd Edition. New York: Continuum.

Erom, Kletus. 2010. “Cultural Imagery in Nominal Marking System of Mangaraian Language (Article)” in REFERENCE, Journal of Language and Language Teaching. Vol. 1 No. 2, March 2011, 55 – 61. Kupang: Widya Mandira Catholic University.

------2011. “Word Pair System in Mangaraian Language: Cultural Linguistic Perspectives (Article)” in REFERENCE, Journal of Language and Language Teaching. Vol. 1 No. 3, May 2011, 117 – 128. Kupang: Widya Mandira Catholic University.

------2011. “How to See the Past, the Present, and the Future of Manggaraian Speech Community: Cultural Linguistic Perspectives (Article)” in REFERENCE, Journal of Language and Language Teaching. Vol. 1 No. 4, November 2011, 151 – 161. Kupang: Widya Mandira Catholic University.

------2014. “Some Differences in Grammatical Structure of English and Indonesian and

34 Vol.2, No.1 Februari 2016 JURNAL TUTUR ISSN 2442-3475

Differences in Cultural Imagery of English Speakers and Indonesian Speakers (Article)” in Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan Bahasa. Edisi 03 Vol. 1 No. 3, September 2014, 197 – 207. Kupang: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris.

Fromkin, Victoria, et al. 2012. An Introduction to Language, Australia and New Zealand 7th Edition. Sydney: Cengage Learning Australia Pty Limited.

Kővecses, Zoltan. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palmer, Gary B. 1996. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics, 1st Edition. Texas: The University of Texas Press.

Perry, Jr. Fred L. 2005. Research in Applied Linguistics: Becoming a Discerning CoMLSumer. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Pita, Petrus. 1999. “KorespondeMLSi Fonem /p/ dan /b/ sebagai UMLSur Pembentuk Kata yang Bertalian Makna dalam Bahasa Nagekeo”. Denpasar: Universitas Udayana.

------2011. “Status Kebahasaan Isolek-isolek di Kabupaten Nagekeo: Kajian Dialek Geografi”. Denpasar: Universitas Udayana.

35