Subgrouping the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages using systematic Bayesian inference Gereon A. Kaiping1 and Marian Klamer1 1Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden, NL April 10, 2019 This paper refines the subgroupings of the 1. Introduction Timor-Alor-Pantar (TAP) family of Papuan languages, using a systematic Bayesian phy- The Timor-Alor-Pantar (TAP) languages are logenetics study. While recent work indi- a family of some 25 non-Austronesian or cates that the TAP family comprises a Timor “Papuan” languages spoken on the islands (T) branch and an Alor Pantar (AP) branch of Timor, Alor and Pantar, as well as on (Holton et al. 2012, Schapper et al. 2017), neighbouring smaller islets, located some the internal structure of the AP branch has 1,000 kilometres west of New Guinea (Holton proven to be a challenging issue, and earlier et al. 2012, Schapper et al. 2017, Holton & studies leave large gaps in our understand- Robinson 2017, Klamer 2017). The TAP fam- ing. Our Bayesian inference study is based ily is split into three branches: Bunak, the on an extensive set of TAP lexical data from East Timor group comprising the languages the online LexiRumah database (Kaiping & Makasae, Fataluku, and Oirata, and the Alor- Klamer 2018). Systematically testing differ- Pantar (AP) branch, which comprises the re- ent approaches to cognate coding, loan ex- maining languages. For an alphabetical list clusion, and explicit modelling choices, we of the TAP languages and their locations, see arrive at a subgrouping structure of the TAP Table 1 and Fig. 1 on the next pages. family that is based on features of the phylo- Makasae, Fataluku, and Bunak are spo- genies shared across the different analyses. ken on the island of Timor, the language Our TAP tree differs from all earlier propos- Oirata is spoken on the neighboring island of als by inferring the East-Alor subgroup as an Kisar, the languages Kafoa, Kui, Klon, Adang, early split-off from all other AP languages, Hamap, Kabola, Abui, Kamang, Kula, Wers- instead of the most deeply embedded sub- ing, and Sawila are spoken on Alor; Kaera, group inside that branch. Klamu, Teiwa, Western Pantar, Sar and most Blagar varieties are spoken on the island of Pantar, while Blagar-Pura and Reta are spo- 1 Language ISO Population Dialect Island Abbreviation Abui abz 17000 Fuimelang Alor Ab Petleng Alor Takalelang Alor Atimelang Alor Ulaga Alor Adang adn 7000 Lawahing Alor Ad Otvai Alor Blagar beu 10000 Bakalang Pantar Bl Bama Pantar Kulijahi Pantar Nule Pantar Tuntuli Pantar Warsalelang Pantar Pura Pura Bunak bfn 80000 Bobonaro Timor Maliana Timor Suai Timor Deing twe 1000 Deing Pantar Fataluku ddg 30000 Fataluku Timor Hamap hmu 1300 Moru Alor Kabola klz 3900 Monbang Alor Kaera jka 5500 Abangiwang Pantar Ke Kafoa kpu 1000 Probur Alor Kamang woi 6000 Kamang-Atoitaa Alor Km Kiraman kvd 1900 Kiraman Alor Klon kyo 5000 Bring Alor Kl Hopter Alor Kui kvd 1900 Labaing Alor Ki Kula tpg 5000 Lantoka Alor Makasae mkz 70000 Makasae Timor Klamu nec 1380 Klamu Pantar Nd Oirata oia 1220 Oirata Kisar Reta ret *2500 Reta Pura Teiwa twe 4000 Adiabang Pantar Tw Nule Pantar Lebang Pantar Sawila swt 3000 Sawila Alor Sw Wersing kvw 3700 Maritaing Alor We Taramana Alor Western Pantar lev 10300 Tubbe Pantar WP Table 1: Languages of the TAP family with the island where they are spoken, and number of speakers. Speaker numbers are taken from Klamer (2017: Table 1), except for Reta (starred), which is taken from Willemsen (to appear). 2 ken on the island of Pura in the Straits be- both groups together form the TAP family tween Alor and Pantar. (Schapper et al. 2017). Most of the TAP languages have speaker If and how the TAP family relates to other communities ranging between 1 000 and families is examined by Holton & Robinson 10 000 speakers. The average number of (2014) who conclude that there is no lexi- speakers per language is 11 852 due to the cal evidence to support an affiliation with three big languages Bunak (80 000 speakers), any other family in the world, including the Fataluku (30 000), and Makasae (70 000), spo- Trans New Guinea family, in contrast to what ken on Timor. One of the smallest languages had been assumed previously (Wurm et al. is Klamu (200 speakers) (Holton 2004), see Ta- 1975, Ross 2005). ble 1. Robinson & Holton (2012) compare the The relatively small size of most of these tree of Holton et al. (2012), shown in Fig. 2, speaker communities and the limited geo- with a Bayesian phylogenetic inference tree, graphical area in which they live has resulted shown in Fig. 3. Both of these trees were cre- in a situation where traditionally neighbour- ated using data collected up to 2009. ing groups had much contact through cul- Over the last few years much additional tural exchanges and intermarriage. Con- comparative lexical data has been collected tact with Austronesian donor languages goes on the TAP languages, increasing the size back a long way, as evidenced by the Aus- of the sample from 12 to 40 TAP language tronesian loans that were borrowed into the varieties (i.e. dialects or languages). The AP proto-language before it split up, per- new word lists have been combined with the haps 3000 years ago (see Section 2.5; Holton earlier body of data and made available in et al. (2012)). The contact between TAP the LexiRumah database (Kaiping et al. 2019, and Austronesian languages continues un- Kaiping & Klamer 2018). On the methodolog- til today and has resulted in Austronesian ical side, recent years have seen a significant loan words in the individual TAP languages. improvement of computational tools, models Three recent donor languages of Austrone- and algorithms for inferring language histo- sian loan words are Indonesian, the domi- ries from word lists. For example, there are nant national language of Indonesia and/or now new methods for automatic cognate de- its basilect Alor Malay, Alorese, the lingua tection using state-of-the-art pairwise pho- franca used on (parts of) Pantar and West netic alignment algorithms (List 2012a,b, List Alor before the advent of Malay/Indonesian, & Greenhill & Tresoldi, et al. 2018, List et and Tetun, one of the national languages of al. 2017, Jäger et al. 2017) that reach nearly Timor Leste. 90% accuracy (B-Cubed F-score) in determin- Over the last 15 years, a body of work ing the cognate sets to be used in phyloge- on TAP languages has appeared, including netic analyses (Rama et al. 2018). Bayesian grammatical descriptions, typological com- phylogenetic inference research has empiri- parisons and historical comparative work. cally shown which models are useful for lex- Historical reconstructions used the tradi- ical data (Chang et al. 2015, Kolipakam et tional comparative method based on regular al. 2018) and many of these models have sound changes, first demonstrating the exis- been made accessible (Maurits et al. 2017) tence of an Alor Pantar group (Holton et al. for easy use with linguistic data that is con- 2012) and an East Timor group (Schapper et forming to cross-linguistic standards (Forkel al. 2012), followed by a demonstration that 2017, Forkel & List, et al. 2018). In addi- 3 ���°E ���°E Alorese Wersing Wersing Reta Kabola Kroku Adang Kula Teiwa Kamang Klamu Blagar Kui cluster Alorese Alorese Hamap Kaera Abui Suboo Sawila Kafoa Sar Reta Klon Blagar Alor Wersing Western Papuna Kiramang Pantar Kui N Pantar Language Family ���� Deing Austronesian � km �� Timor-Alor-Pantar © Owen Edwards Edwards © Owen ���°E ���°E Wetar ���°E cluster Roma Hresuk Leti Luang �°S Kisar Kisar Kedang see Alor-Pantar map Galolen Oirata Sika Habun Tetun Dadu'a Waimaha Dili Makasae Fataluku Lamaholot Tokodede Mambae Hewa cluster Kemak Makalero Tetun Naueti Kairui-Midiki Bunak Idaté Lakalei Language Family Austronesian Tetun Uab Meto Austronesian-based Creole cluster Timor-Alor-Pantar ��°S Kupang Malay N BRUNEI East Rote Dengka Helong � km �� ���� Dhao East-Central Rote Central Rote TIMOR-LESTE Dela- AUSTRALIA Oenale Tii-Lole Edwards © Owen Figure 1: Map of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages 4 tion, a number of new models have been sug- L.C. Robinson, G. Holton / Language Dynamics and Change 2 (2012) 123–149 129 gested that might better match how lexical replacement takes place in reality (Bouck- aert & Robbeets 2017, Kelly & Nicholls 2016). The earlier reconstructions of the TAP family still leave large gaps in our under- standing of the linguistic history of the TAP family, especially in its subgrouping. Apply- ing the traditional comparative method in subgrouping is inherently subjective (we ex- Figure 4. Subgrouping of Alor-Pantar based plain this in Section 4), and is widely recog- on shared phonological innovations (H2012). Figure 2: Subgroupings tree based on shared nized as a fraught task, especially for closely With this backgroundphonological it is natural to ask innovations, why linguists choose accord- to rely on such related languages. In this paper we re- ad-hoc methodologying for to determining and reproduced linguistic subgroups. from Of course Holton the pri- mary answer is that, in many cases, the work of the comparative method remains address the subgrouping of the TAP family, to be completed,et so weal. do (2012) not have knowledge (Figure of regular HPhon2012). historical changes with a particular focus on the internal struc- which could be used to discern shared linguistic history. But even when we do have knowledgeThe of historical language sound changes, abbreviations it is not always easy to determine are ture of the AP subfamily, while making all subgroups with alisted high degree in of Table certainty. 1.Rather than proceeding in a neat hier- archical fashion, sound changes ofen cross-cut each other in a wave-like pattern the analytical steps involved as visible and that is not well-described by a tree.