H. Steinhauer Austronesian Geographical prospects

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 142 (1986), no: 2/3, Leiden, 296-313

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access HEIN STEINHAUER

AUSTRONESIAN GEOGRAPHICAL PROSPECTS

While linguistic geography with regard to Western European languages is developing towards ever greater sociolinguistic and geographical detail in its endeavours to map linguistic change in progress and to reveal the linguistic past, large parts of the rest of the world are virtually blank spots. The necessity to improve upon this deplorable state of affairs is underlined by the recent publication of S. A. Wurm and Shiro Hattori (eds.), Language Atlas of the Pacific Area. Part I, Area, Oceania, Australia, Pacific Linguistics C-66 (1981); Part II, Japan Area, Philippines and Formosa, Mainland and Insular South-east Asia, Pacific Linguistics C-67, 1983. The area covered by this atlas extends over about one third of the world and comprises some of the linguistically most diversified regions. For few of the languages involved do detailed dialectological surveys exist; for many there are at least preliminary outlines and wordlists available; but of far too many hardly anything is known beyond the name. Language maps only existed for a limited number of areas. This atlas is therefore in many respects a pioneering work. The two parts together cover the whole of the "Greater Pacific" area. Each is divided into sections. Part I consists of one index map, fourteen maps of the New Guinea area (one survey map and three more detailed maps of Irian Jaya, one survey map of -New Guinea and nine maps covering separate parts of it), five maps of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, four maps of Australia and Tasmania, and one additional map relating to pidgins and lingue franche in the area covered by this part. Part II includes one general map of language groups in the Greater Pacific area, four maps of the Japan area, one map of Formosa, four maps of the Philippines, three maps of mainland Southeast Asia, eight maps of insular Southeast Asia, and two additional maps, one for the pidgins, Creoles and lingue franche in the area covered by Part II, and one showing the distribution of varieties of Chinese in the Greater Pacific area. Each section has a general introduction, as well as an index to the names of the dialects, languages and language groups covered by the map or maps of that section. On the reverse side of each non-survey map the languages and dialects indicated on that map are listed according to

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 297 the way in which they are subgrouped; in addition an indication is given of the estimated current number of speakers, and often also of alter- native names, as well as of whether the same dialect, language or group extends to an area covered by another map. Furthermore, the sources upon which each map is based are accounted for in an introductory paragraph and bibliography. Thus the atlas supplies the user interested in a specific area with a preliminary bibliography and a means of evalua- ting the information presented. Finally, the language lists are provided with footnotes varying from remarks on alternative names, subgrouping and sociolinguistic position to observations on the history of the dialect, language or language group in question. With one exception (the Japan area, see below), the atlas does not compare structural linguistic items, but aims at a representation of the geographical distribution of dialects, languages and language groups of varying hierarchical status. As such it is subject to the limitations of social geography in general. Not only is a detailed illustration of socio- linguistic stratification precluded by the two-dimensional character of the maps, but this dimensional restriction also necessitates the delinea- tion of unwarrantedly sharp and absolute boundaries. On some of the maps uninhabited areas are distinguished from in- habited ones, but nowhere are the criteria indicated for deciding how densely and evenly populated an area had to be in order to be qualified as inhabited and consequently as "speaking" one or more particular languages. The atlas makes use of a variety of different boundaries, the relative weight of which has been established by reference to rather hetero- geneous criteria. Only for the map of the dialects of Japanese (map 27) have purely qualitative criteria been applied. In the case of the Poly- nesian group it was "bibliographical transparency" which was decisive for the differentiation of languages and dialects: when a communalect appeared with some persistency in the literature it was given language status, even though according to other criteria it appropriately belongs with other such languages to a dialect chain. With regard to the sub- grouping of it is said that the atlas "relies more heavily on historical and comparative linguistic observations" (cf. the blue introductory sheet for Island Melanesia, Micronesia and Poly- nesia), i.e. more heavily than in the case of the other language groups. In respect of the Australian languages it is observed that lexico- statistical methods are less reliable because of the instability of their basic lexicon, so that (in unspecified cases) grammatical differences have been weighed more heavily than lexical ones (cf. the blue introduc- tory sheet for the section on Australian languages). Similar arguments underlie the current classification of (cf. Wurm & McElhanon 1975, pp. 148-149). Yet, in the absence of sufficient reliable analyses of many of the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 298 Hein Steinhauer languages covered by the atlas, quantitative, lexicostatistical calcula- tions are necessarily the only basis for the classification indicated. In a number of instances the compilers of the atlas must have faced a total lack of data; a subgrouping and classification have nonetheless been given in these cases, apparently on the basis of geographical likelihood. The uncertain status of some of the classifications is reflected also by the indication of possible alternatives (cf., for instance, the subdivision given in the listing on the reverse of map 12 and the radically different subgrouping presented in note 4 to that map: what according to the listing represent a "family" belonging to "stock" A, and two "stock- level" groups from a "superstock" B to which A does not belong, in the note are described as forming a single new stock Q distinct from the rest of A and B). The fact that examples of such indecisiveness are rare seems to be a reflection, not so much of the indisputability of most of the other classifications, as of a lack of data and discussion with respect to the languages in question. The terminology used for the various subgroups of, for instance, Papuan languages (e.g., phylum, stock, group or family, etc.) is ex- plained on more than one occasion in terms of lexicostatistical percent- ages and accompanying typological and grammatical correspondences. The terms for lower-order groups such as the section, sub-section and sub-sub-section (all coming below the subgroup) are not explained at all, however. These latter terms occur in, for instance, maps 19 and 45. In some instances the classification method gives rise to questions. This is the case in, for example, the key to map 6, where the following items are found: Waho Family/ Schultze Sub-Phylum-level Stock vs. Papi Family ^ Leonard J

Pondo Family^ Nor-Pondo^ Nor-Pondo Sub-Phylum-level Stock Nor Family ) Stock ) (sic). For the Australian area often higher-level groups are distinguished (sometimes even with a different name) even though they have only one lower-level member. Above, I indicated that the atlas had to largely generalize from sociolinguistic detail. The scales of the maps necessarily entail general- izations of a geographical nature as well. This is the case, for instance, for Mainland Southeast Asia, where the distribution of ethnic groups is conditioned by ecological and topographical factors, so that the distribu- tion of a given language may be linked with certain altitudinal zones, rather than with a particular uninterrupted geographical area. The resul- tant picture, generalized though it may be, of an area full of pockets within pockets is complicated enough, however (cf. map 35). But there are also other "distortions" of present-day reality which have been consciously carried through by the editors of the atlas. The

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 299 most conspicuous is the decision to disregard immigrant languages which accompanied European expansionism. The only exception concerns the varieties of Chinese in the Pacific area, to which a separate map (map 47) is devoted, though their occurrence here can be regarded as a local, intra-Pacific development, independent of European colonialist activi- ties. Likewise regarded as a local development - and therefore ac- counted for — is the rise of pidgins and Creoles, including those based on Hindi (in Fiji) and on European languages (cf. maps 24 and 46). The maps covering Australia and New Zealand, however, present a reconstruction of the "pre-contact" linguistic situation in those areas. Additionally the inset of map 37 of the Andaman Islands is a reconstruc- tion, namely of the situation obtaining before the large-scale immigra- tion from mainland India brought about the extinction of most of the aboriginal languages. Map 30 (of Formosa), although it does indicate which aboriginal languages have been sinicized, does not give any in- formation on the spread or the varieties of Chinese spoken there (nor is Taiwan included in the above-mentioned map 47). The distribution of the shown on map 30 appears to be based on extrapolations from the accumulated (and heterogeneous) evidence of their existence in recent times to an unspecified earlier period. It would have been interesting to know in which settlements and in what absolute and relative numbers the Taiwan aborigines are found today. With respect to Malaysia and Singapore (map 37), the presence of large Tamil and other Indian communities is not even mentioned. It is understandable that recent internal migrations have likewise not been taken into account in the atlas: they are either still in progress or are so recent that their effects have not yet been investigated in any system- atic way; any indications of these would therefore have been arbitrary guesswork anyway. Most important in this respect are the effects of the Vietnam war in Indochina and of Pol Pot's genocidal regime in Cam- bodia. A still continuing process within is caused by spon- taneous and organized transmigration, which is changing the linguistic picture of hitherto more sparsely populated areas in sometimes radical ways. Furthermore, there is the continuous process of urbanization in probably the whole of the area covered by the atlas, which will certainly have its effects on the distribution of language varieties, and not only in the urbanized centres themselves. Given the above-mentioned limitations, the atlas in general presents a clear picture reflecting current knowledge about the indigenous lan- guages of the Greater Pacific areas. The colouring, hatchings, linguistic boundaries, language labels and legends are all of them maximally clear and distinct. With a single exception, the colouring and sometimes also the hatchings have been kept the same in contiguous maps. With regard to geographical details, such as the mention of place-names and the marking in of rivers and islands, however, the maps show considerable

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 300 Hein Steinhauer variability. There seem to have been no clear criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of minor geographic features: where maps overlap, one more often than not finds rivers running different courses or having different names, or different towns being indicated. On the whole, misspellings of less important geographical names are quite frequent. Added to the maps have been a few loose leaves with errata. These are by no means exhaustive, however. Some of the more conspicuous in- consistencies and errors which are not covered by them are the fol- lowing. - Map 45 covers the southern Moluccan islands of Watubela, Kasiui, Tior and, a little further to the south, Kaimeer and Kur. The latter two islands are also found with the same names on map 4. Map 1, how- ever, identifies the three northern islands as the Watubela Islands without further specification, but gives the names Teor (not Tior) and Kur for the southern group. Map 2, finally, only covers the northern group, which here is also labelled Watubela Islands, while the southern two of these are specified as Kasiui and Teor. - What is indicated as Nuhuro Island on map 1 is labelled Kai Kecil on map 4. The Kai Islands of map 4 are referred to as Kei islands on the reverse. - On maps 6 and 7 the Aion language is subdivided into Lembun and "other dialects", while the Adjora language is not dialectically dif- ferentiated; the reverse sides of both maps, however, present pre- cisely the opposite picture. - According to map 23 the Djawi language is a member of the Worora group, but on the reverse side it is classified as Nyulnyulan. - Map 15 is stated to be based on "Wurm 1981", map 23 on "Tryon 1974", whereas these sources are not mentioned in the respective bibliographies. The same holds for "Crowley 1981", mentioned in note 12 on the reverse of map 23. - The bold boundary lines on map 15 are not explained in the legend. If they represent subgroup borders they should also be drawn in be- tween the Buka, Saposa-Timputz and Papapana subgroups. The Oroha language and the Haunumu and Atsilma dialects of the map are referred to as Oraha, Hauhumu and Atsilima on the reverse. - In inset B of map 19 a southern dialect of Pa'umotu is indicated but left nameless, while the listings on the reverse include no name of such a dialect, either. Many islands on this map have been left unlabelled, so that it is unclear whether they are uninhabited, English-speaking or just forgotten. - The Mpi language of the Burmic Stock (according to the reverse of map 35) is not represented by any hatching on the map, which would make it a member of the Kachinic Stock. The white hatchings in the Golden Triangle are not explained. The two Laha pockets in the central northern area of this map have different hatchings ("black

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 301

snow", which is in agreement with the legend, and "blue rain", which . is not). • - Map 36 has an (unexplained) white hatching around Tavoy, whereas the same area has no special hatching on map 35. In this latter map a Mon enclave is indicated northeast of Ayutthaya which is lacking on map 36. - The legends of map 36 divide the Chamic Stock into a northern and a southern group, which subdivision does not recur in the listings on the reverse. - On map 36 the border between the Urak Lawoi7 and the North- Western dialects of Malay is drawn in as a straight line east of the Adang Group of islands, in such a way that the islands of Ko Tarutao and Pulau Langkawi (and the smaller islands to the south and east of it) become North-Western Malay; on map 37, however, this border takes an S-curve, whereby the Adang Group and Pulau Langkawi (on this map indicated as Batang Group and Langkawi respectively) become members of Urak Lawoi7, while only Ko Tarutao now is North-Western Malay. The fact that this list might be continued to some length reflects the apparent haste in which (parts of) the atlas had to be completed. Given the enormous scope of the atlas and the large number of its compilers and their advisors, it is only understandable that it should be less homogeneous in a number of respects. The area covered includes language groups which not only are structurally and typologically quite different, but also are the subject of different traditions of classification and study. And as indicated above, the present knowledge about the languages shown varies enormously. For some areas, furthermore, the atlas aims at a reconstruction of the "original" situation, whereas for other areas this is less relevant. Finally, some maps reflect the specific expertise and interest of their compiler(s) more than others. The scope of the atlas makes it impossible for one reviewer to comment upon all the maps in anything but general terms. I shall therefore discuss only a few maps in some detail, as they deviate from the norm either in quality or as regards approach. Before beginning, I wish to emphasize again, however, that most of the maps are highly infor- mative and give a representative reflection of current linguistic know- ledge about the area covered. This is especially true of the section relating to Australia and Papua-New Guinea, the knowledge of which areas is concentrated jn Australia, where the atlas was prepared, though also of other sections. Map 18 is one of the more summary maps in the atlas. It covers the Oceanic area of Micronesia. The information presented on the reverse of this map is minimal. The classification of the languages given there is claimed to be "nearly the same as that presented in Bender 1971", no other source being mentioned. Nevertheless, this is the map for which

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 302 Hein Steinhauer

"bibliographical transparency" is stated to have been the criterion for the few deviations from Bender in the distinction of more separate languages. The Stammbaum model of language classification in such a case requires adjustment on a higher subgrouping level: e.g., where Bender only distinguishes a Trukese language (of which Trukese proper and Mortlockese would then be dialects), map 18 indicates Trukese and Mortlockese as languages, so that a new subfamily (Trukic) has had to be created. The same is the case with Bender's Gilbertese, which language has been promoted to a subfamily status, with Gilbertese and Northern Gilbertese as its member languages, at least according to the reverse of the map. On the map itself they are not so distinguished, but are lumped together under the name Kiribati. The eastern part of the Kiribati islands is not covered by this map, but is by map 19, where, however, a language indication is lacking. Data on the distribution of the languages indicated on the map are presented in the notes on the reverse. However, many of the geograph- ical names mentioned in these notes cannot be traced back on the map, while conversely, names that occur on the map are not to be found in the notes. Finally, as in the case of map 19 (see above), map 18 includes a number of islands which fall outside all language boundaries, while lacking any specification as to (un)inhabitedness or language used. All of the four maps of the Japan area (26-29) are of quite a different character from all the other maps in the atlas, including the other "Japanese" maps. Map 26 covers the islands of Hokkaido and the southern part of the Sakhalin Peninsula and gives information on the places in Hokkaido where Ainu speakers were interviewed in the early fifties. The villages in Sakhalin indicated as Ainu settlements on the map are those from which the compiler of the map happened to meet infor- mants in Hokkaido. The reverse of the map indicates that prior to the collection of the data for it there had been a difference of opinion about the time in which Ainu would become extinct (the estimates varying between two and fifteen years). Nothing is said, however, about the subsequent fate of Ainu, nor about its present position — if any. It is not clear whether the "Ainu" villages were indeed the only villages where Ainu speakers were to be found. Especially the data on Sakhalin are accidental, rather than being the result of a systematic survey. The next map (27), relating to Japanese within the Hokkaido- Kyushu area, is the only map to delineate linguistic boundaries ex- clusively on a qualitative basis: the main criterion for grouping dialects here is shared innovation in the accent/tone pattern of monosyllabic and bisyllabic nouns (± clitic). The reverse of the map gives a detailed and very enlightening description of the nature and history of each dialect type. Contrary to the practice in the case of the other maps, dialect groups are not exclusively indicated by different shades or hatchings of the same basic colour, but dialects of the same group are distinguished by

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 303 bright contrasting colours, whereas dialects of different groups may share the same basic colour. On the map all the dialects are numbered, though not in any systematic way, such as from north to south or according to type. On the reverse of the map, however, dialects are identified by reference to some village and/or district, which latter, like some of the villages mentioned on the reverse, are not indicated on the map, whereas other settlements which do occur on the map are not referred to in the text. It would have been helpful for the non-specialist user of the atlas if the relevant numbers had been used in the text as well. According to the index map, maps 27 and 28 should overlap. In reality this is not the case. Takara-jima and Kodakara-jima (mentioned on the reverse of 27), for instance, are found on neither map. Map 28 covers the area between Amami-oshima in the north and Hateruma Island in the south. It shows the area of influence of two major cities, as well as a few dialect borders of different weight. The reverse presents an account of how the four compilers agreed upon the type and course of the borders shown, but giving amazingly little information on the linguistic nature of these borders. It seems certain that, to the extent that isoglosses were used, they were of a different order from those used for the delimitations on map 27. Apart from these borders, the map indicates settlements whose dialect differs from those of their sur- roundings. But no attempt is made to link these deviating dialects to other areas, although the scarcely qualitative data presented on the reverse strongly suggest that, for instance, the differences between Sani on Amami-oshima and the other Amami dialects parallel the differences between Southern and Northern Okinawa. The brief classification of dialects on the reverse does not match the information given on the map, and seems incomplete and haphazard. It includes names of villages and towns which are not indicated on the map. Some of the qualifications (reproduced in italics below) are unclear and unexplained, e.g.: "Kuni- gama dialects [approximation]", "Kikai Town (=Kikai Island)", "Irabu-jima dialects =Irabu village". The last map of the Japan series (map 29) is actually a demographic map, and as such will prove useful for a future detailed dialectological study. The area covered is Okinawa and the immediately surrounding islands, including Kume Island (inset) but excluding Aguni Island, Tonaki Island and the Kerama Islands between Okinawa and Kume Island. The map merely indicates different kinds of 18th and 19th century villages on the basis of their demographic history. In the lists of villages on the reverse of the map they are grouped on an administrative basis. Here the official Japanese names of the villages are given first, followed by the Standard Okinawan equivalents in a phonemic notation. A number of symbols used in this notation need to be explained, while only some of them are: whereas combinations of tone symbols are still interpretable, the absence of stress (?) and/or tone symbols is not. It is

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 304 Hein Steinhauer unclear what local names'in parentheses or series of local names stand for (e.g.: "II-6 yako (/-'jakumeeda/)", "11-13 nuha /-nuhwa, -nuuhwa, -nihwa/", "11-16 takazato /-takazatu/ (/-7weeda, -'jakabi, 'Nzatu/)"). Neither the map nor its reverse give any information on the language(s) spoken in the various villages. Nevertheless each village name is listed in the blue index of language names for the Japan area as that of a separate dialect. The first of the four maps of the Philippines (31-34) shows the non-overlapping areas of the ten major languages of the Philippines, i.e. the areas where they are spoken and where they are of considerable importance. The other three maps present detailed pictures of the Northern, the Central and the Southern Philippines. The introductory sheet to these four maps gives a clear idea of the difficulties involved in mapping the actual distribution of the languages, which shows overlaps and is by no means static: the major languages are gaining ground as a result of migration, bilingualism, and the younger generation's giving up the minor languages of its parents in favour of a higher-prestige major language. On the whole, the maps are based on the acknowledged fiction that sharp language boundaries exist: dialect chains are presented as single languages; the hatchings of the major languages cover areas where a majority of the population claims to speak that language; and minor languages within such areas, or in areas where another minor language is more prominent, are not indicated (in other words, an indication of the actual overlap of minor languages has been avoided). The maps do indicate, however, which major languages are spoken "by sizable minor- ities of the population, or are making strong inroads into the local language situation" in which minor language areas (blue introductory sheet). An obvious distortion of present-day reality is the exaggeration of the areas covered by the minor languages in some cases "to corres- pond more accurately to their original homelands" (introductory sheet). Unfortunately, no indication is given of which minor languages are so exaggerated, and to what extent. The approach chosen for the Philippine section of the atlas has re- sulted in a high transparency of the maps. The bibliographies on the reverse of the maps provide sufficient access to further relevant informa- tion. Of minor importance are a few inconsistencies in the areas where the maps overlap. — Ternateno is not indicated on map 33 (while it is on map 32). - Calamias Island of map 33 is indicated as Cabalete Island on map 32. — Bohol Strait and Panaon (island) of map 33 are referred to as Cebu Strait and Panon on map 34. - On map 34 E BIKOL (Standard) should be added to the key. One of the more unbalanced maps of the atlas is map 37, covering mainland Malaysia and the Nicobar and Andaman Archipelagoes. The

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 305 compiler of the Malaysian part seems to have been primarily interested in the so-called Aslian Stock languages of the Austroasiatic Phylum. Too many data on these languages are squeezed into this one map, moreover. For instance, it shows: - the subgrouping of the languages and their dialectological differentia- tion, both extant and extinct; - "the earlier distribution of both extant and extinct dialects . . based on a reanalysis [by the compiler] of materials" in sources from 1906, 1937 and 1952 (cf. the reverse of the map); - areas covered only by a language marked as extinct (which must therefore be uninhabited now), white areas (which have apparently always (?) been uninhabited - the key to the map gives no explanation of these areas), and areas which have always (?) been inhabited; - overlap of the "traditional" and present distribution of the Aslian languages; - supposed "early" Malayization, which is said to have produced the Aboriginal Malay dialects, as well as current Malay influence, which is indicated on the map by means of a series of sinuous curves along rivers. This over-attention to Austroasiatic and Aslian languages has resulted in a rather serious underexposure of Malay. Over against the Aboriginal Malay varieties, which are dealt with in some dialec- tological detail, so-called "local Malay" is hardly differentiated at all. The classification of Urak Lawoi9 and Duano7 as distinct from "local Malay" seems to have been inspired by anthropological considera- tions rather than linguistic evidence. Dialect boundaries seem to have been drawn simply where the ruler happened to come down. Ad- mittedly our knowledge of Malay dialects in,Malaysia has increased considerably since work on the atlas began, but even so a lot more knowledge was available at the time the atlas was compiled than has been accounted for here. One of the minor omissions of the map is that in the inset showing the Andaman Island languages, South Sentinel Island has been given the colour of an Andaman language, which moreover has not been indicated as being extinct, while it lies well and truly outside all borders delimiting the Andaman languages. Another map showing deficiencies is map 38, which covers , and in an inset also Madagascar. The configurations on this map reveal obvious disparity in the degree of knowledge about different areas. The compiler has visited Aceh, and the information on that province is consequently detailed and true to reality; boundaries are not straight and artificial, uninhabited areas are indicated, and the position and shape of the Minangkabau, and Javanese enclaves are not sche- matic. Linguistic research in Indonesia tends to be province-bound for ad- ministrative reasons. This circumstance must have caused the compiler

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 306 Hein Steinhauer

- going by what he was told by his Acehnese informants - to distinguish a separate Singkil Batak area, the southern boundary of which appears to be also the provincial border. The reverse of the map admits that "there are no materials of this group" and "it is probaly the same language as Dairi". Southwards of the provincial border of Aceh the Sumatra map is much more schematic: there are no uninhabited areas shown, boun- daries look as though they have been drawn with rulers and compasses, and "it is quite likely that several distinct languages are collapsed under the term 'MALAY DIALECTS'" (reverse). Partly this may be a conse- quence of the lack of data about these areas. But it is difficult to avoid the impression that the compiler did not have access to some of the sources that are available and that he made his own reinterpretations where he did. - The compiler treats Simalungun Batak on the same level as the Northern and Southern groups of Batak dialects; Adelaar 1981, however, presents qualitative evidence that Simalungun Batak is closer to the Southern than to the Northern group. - Kerinci is presented as a dialect of Malay, whereas Minangkabau is treated as a distinct language. The complicated sound changes, the loss of all suffixes and the resultant new morpho-syntactic structure to be observed in the various Kerinci dialects are nevertheless reason enough to consider Kerinci as a separate language from Malay, rather than Minangkabau (cf. Prentice & Hakim Usman 1978 and Stein- hauer & Hakim Usman 1978). - The schematic dialect division of Minangkabau on the map does not resemble the situation outlined in any available source. The most extensive dialect survey of Minangkabau to date was conducted by the late Tamsin Medan in 1979-1980: he checked more than 800 lexical items and a number of morphological and syntactic items in 25 loca- tions in the province of West Sumatra. The preliminary results of his survey, such as the tentative division of the area into 12 dialect areas, are presented in a stencilled report of 1980. One of the most obvious divisions is that between Sijunjung and Sungai Langsat on the one hand and Solok and Salimpat on the other, which is corroborated by the occurrence of a large bundle of isoglosses running parallel to the coast. On the map, however, these four towns are all indicated as representatives of the alleged "central-eastern" dialect. The founda- tions for the other dialect distinctions on the map seem to be similarly uncertain: the curious ring for the alleged Kerinci-Minangkabau dia- lect around the circle of Kerinci itself, for instance, is probably a reflection of the information that Minangkabau is making strong inroads into the Kerinci area, where it functions as a trade language. - Rejang should be divided into the four dialects Pasisir (along the coast) and Lebong, Musi and Kebanagung (from west to east in the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 307

interior), at least according to the source on Rejang which is men- tioned on the reverse of the map. The map itself does not distinguish any Rejang dialect. - The dialects of Lampung have quite different names on the map from those mentioned in the sources listed in the bibliography. The com- piler has promoted Komering (according to his sources a subdialect of one of the two dialects of the ) to the status of a separate language on a par with Lampung without any argumenta- tion. - One of the sources on Malagasy mentioned in the bibliography is Dahl 1951. Dahl, on p.5, lists 23 Malagasy dialects, divided into two groups, and two "dialectes de melange". Dyen 1971 indicates 20 dialects on a map with apparently natural dialect boundaries. The names of Dyen's dialects sometimes differ from Dahl's. Finally, Verin et al., in their glottochronological study on Malagasy dialects of 1969, discuss samples from 17 dialects, the names of which in some cases are different again from Dyen's and/or Dahl's; this source, also men- tioned in the bibliography on the reverse of the map, contains a sketch of Madagascar on which the names of these 17 dialects are indicated in somewhat illegible, hand-written characters. Apparently it was this sketch which the compiler copied rather blindly for his own map and for his list of dialects on the reverse. His own contribution consisted in the addition of schematic borders, as well as in obvious misreadings of the names on the sketch: for instance, where Verin et al. have Maha- faly, Antandroy, Zafisoro, Betsimisaraka and Tsimihety, the atlas has, both on the map and its reverse, the corruptions Maharaly, Antardroy, Zalisere, Betsimaraka and Tsimihetry. The same compiler is responsible for map 39 of , and Madura, where comparable omissions can be pointed out. - For West Java, Nothofer's dialectological study of 1980 has been used. However, the names of the dialects have been changed. Their relative positions in terms of dialect regions and transitional zones have not been indicated either on the map or in the lists. Nothofer's Sundanese-speaking pockets of Parean and Lelea in the Indramayu area have disappeared, as has his Javanese-speaking pocket of Pa- tuanan (north of Majalengka). - The coastal area around Pedes is indicated as a Jakarta Malay area on the map, whereas Nothofer has marked it as a Javanese one. - Where the distinction of the Javanese-speaking area of West Java is also based on Nothofer, again names have been changed and some of Nothofer's details have gone lost: e.g. the Manuk dialect area (= Nothofer's Indramayu dialect region) should near its southern edge have an enclave of the North-Western dialect (= Nothofer's Krawang dialect region) indicated, i.e. the village of Bayur. - Along the eastern boundary of the Sundanese region Nothofer distin-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 308 Hein Steinhauer

guishes the Javanese dialect regions Tegal-Brebes, Banyumas and Ciamis. These are not, however, indicated on map 39. Instead, all Javanese dialects east of Cirebon are lumped together here as "Central Javanese dialects" and "Eastern and other dialects". - The excuse given for this method is that "as yet, to the author's knowledge, no extensive dialect survey of Javanese has been carried out, so it has not been possible to indicate many dialect groups" (reverse of map 39). Apparently the compiler failed to take note of Nothofer 1981 and 1982. For quite a number of individual dialects, moreover, published information has been available for about 100 years, and it would have been useful if at least the names of the dialects had been indicated on the map. - The striations in the colours for Javanese and Madurese on the map, indicating the admixture of Madurese immigrants in "mainland" East Java, extend to Bojonegoro, Madiun, Kediri and Malang. This seems to include much too large a safety margin. Apart from that, it repre- sents a rough generalization of the real situation. - A more realistic picture of the eastern part of Java is presented in the inset, which also covers Bali. The source for the details concerning the Banyuwangi area is not mentioned, though most probably it was Suparman Herusantosa's research report of 1980, which expert field- study should have been given more credit. - With regard to Bali, the observation on the reverse that "Balinese is the only language spoken on Bali" is clearly at variance with the facts and with the information of the map itself. The remark on the reverse that Balinese is also spoken in the "eastern part" of Lombok should of course read "western part". - The qualification of practically the whole of Muslim and Hindu- Buddhist Bali as dialectologically homogeneous, and as being Stan- dard Balinese speaking at that, is highly unrealistic. The most obvious source on the distribution of Balinese dialects, I Wayan Bawa's disser- tation of 1983, was probably not yet available at the time map 39 was drawn. This study clearly shows up the following shortcomings of the map, among others: 1. the size of the Bali Malay area is exaggerated; 2. a dialect with considerable Sasak influence spoken around Ka- rangasem is not indicated; 3. along the north-west coast Madurese expansion should be indi- cated; and 4. the distribution of Bali Aga dialects is markedly different. The last map to be discussed here is map 40, which covers the Lesser Sunda Islands and the islands further east up to Tanimbar. This is a linguistically highly diverse area, about which the information is scarce and scattered. The compiler, an anthropologist rather than a linguist, does not seem to have had access to all the sources on the area. In cases

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 309 where sources were consulted unwarranted ^interpretations of the available information have been made. - The situation for Lombok, for instance, has been simplified as com- pared with that outlined in the source mentioned on the reverse (Teeuw 1951). This source distinguishes a North-Western group of dialects and a Northern group proper; on map 40 both these groups have been merged into a single dialect. The indication of a wide area around the capital of Lombok, Mataram, as a (Standard) Balinese area seems to be an exaggeration: Teeuw indicates only 5 Balinese villages, as against more than 40 Sasak villages, in this area. Another Balinese village (near Tanjung) is not indicated at all on the map. Inasfar as Balinese is spoken at all on Lombok, it was Karangasem Balinese rather than Standard Balinese. Teeuw also indicates five Sumbawanese villages in the Selong area and one such village in the neighbourhood of Mataram; none of these villages appear on the map. - In the extinct non-Austronesian Tambora language might have been indicated. Evidence for the former existence of this lan- guage is presented by Raffles in his History of Java (Vol. II, Appendix F, p. cxcviii-cxcix) and by Zollinger in his travelogue of 1850 (p. 179, 208a). - It is questionable whether the Sangar dialect today covers the whole of the Tambora peninsula, given the fact that the Sangar population was almost annihilated in the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815. Other Bima dialects, mentioned by Jonker in his Bimaneesche Spraakkunst of 1896, have been lumped together as "Bima proper" in the atlas. - The island of Komodo is marked as uninhabited, while the area is indicated as including the island of Rinca between Komodo and . Verheijen's 1982 monograph on Komodo, how- ever, shows that Komodo is inhabited and that it has its own language, which is more related to Manggarai than to Bima; this language moreover is also spoken in one small village on Rinca, the other settlements of which are Bajo-speaking. - It is unclear on what sources the linguistic picture of Sumba is based. Only Kuipers' anthropological study of 1982 is mentioned. The geo- graphical units as shown on her ethnolinguistic map, which are sepa- rated by homogeneous boundaries, can be recognized on the map in the atlas; the borders here have been differentiated into language and dialect borders, however, while some of Kuipers' units have dis- appeared. No mention is made of Onvlee's studies on Sumba lan- guages and dialects (e.g. Onvlee 1973). - It is astonishing to see that for Flores the authoritative linguistic work by Father J. A. J. Verheijen on the Manggarai and Rembong areas (Verheijen 1976 and 1977) is not even alluded to. With respect to this western part of Flores the atlas does not show the slightest resem-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 310 Hein Steinhauer

blance to the maps presented in Verheijen's studies. - In the central area of Flores, the atlas distinguishes two Ende-Lio dialects, namely Nga'o and -Keo, separated by a schematic north-south border. According to Verheijen (p.c.) this area should be considered rather as speaking two languages, which are different from Ende-Lio: Nage in the north and Keo in the south. - The Malay of Larantuka, which for obscure reasons is referred to on the reverse as Ende Malay, is not only spoken in Larantuka and in a nameless village (Konga, H. S.) in East Flores, but also in Wure(h) in North Adonare. - The indication on the map of a Bajo-speaking settlement on the south coast of Manggarai is probably based on the mistaken assumption that "Bajo", the name of the coastal region of that part of Manggarai, has some connection with the Sama-Bajo or Bajau language (Verheijen, p.c). - Map 40 on the whole is not free from speculative details, such as the classification of Lamaholot into dialects and subdialects which, ac- cording to the reverse, "is at best tentative", and which, moreover, is completely at variance with the lexicostatistical classification pre- sented in Keraf 1978 (featuring as reference in the bibliography to the map): not only are distinct dialects from this source lumped together on the map, but the compiler has apparently also failed to notice that the dialect which he indicates as "southern West Lamaholot" on the map is classified as a dialect of Sikka by Keraf, while the latter's dialect subgrouping into a "western", a "central" and an "eastern" group (all represented on the island of Lomblen in the East) is replaced in the atlas by a mere geographical subdivision in which the eastern group includes all the Lomblen dialects as well as those of Pantar and Alor (not dealt with by Keraf). In this connection it is perhaps typical that the village of Lamalera in Lomblen, the dialect of which is the main subject of Keraf s monograph, is not even indicated on the map. - Similarly speculative is the supposition that the non-Austronesian language of the island of Atauro [ata-uru] may be classified "for geographical reasons" as "a dialect of Kolana or perhaps of Tangla- pui" (both of them languages of Alor; on the map it has, in fact, the same hatching as Kolana); this is the more speculative since "the language has not been studied" (cf. the reverse of the map). Portu- guese informants have told me that the language in question is a dialect of the East Timorese non-Austronesian language Makasai. - Also Oirata, the non-Austronesian language of the island of Kisar (cf. J. P. B. de Josselin de Jong's study on this dialect of 1937, which is not included in the bibliography on the reverse of the map), is most closely related to Makasai. For obscure reasons it is qualified in the lists as a family-level isolate, alongside the Makasai-Alor-Pantar family; this

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 311

representation is also at variance with the results of Stokhof s 1975 study on the Alor and Pantar languages, mentioned in the biblio- graphy. Map 40 is moreover one of those maps which lead one to wonder what the criteria for including certain geographical names and excluding others have been. The compiler has come up with a considerable number of names which are different from those found in his sources, which cannot be found in current atlases or which simply show careless spell- ing. So Ngilmina, Nikinik, Kekamenanu, Nunkolo and Sultrana in Timor should read Noilmina, Nikiniki, Kefamenanu, Nunkola and Sutrana; Kayan, Treweg, Batuiolong, Cimbur and Silopa in the Pantar- Alor archipelago should be Kayang, Treweng, Batuiolong, Limbur and Peitoku; while Teba, Saaron, and Aluben are a few examples of place names which I have not succeeded in tracing at all. For Flores this latter holds for Wera, Wado, Bada and Palit, while Loren apparently stands for Toren Island (a name appearing on old Dutch maps - the local name is Mules). The language indicated as Anakalangu on Sumba is referred to as Anakalang in all the other sources; Huaki on Wetar should be Ilwaki, as should probably also the local dialect (indicated as Iliwaki on both the map and its reverse) (cf. de Josselin de Jong 1947). On the whole, map 40 gives the impression of having been planned and executed in altogether too great a hurry. It seems to have been haste rather than any special logic which has been responsible for note 3 on the reverse, according to which the mutual unintelligibility of languages was the cause of the compiler's difficulties in distinguishing between dialects and subdialects of these languages. Most of the maps of the atlas cover areas which are linguistically so complex and geographically so extensive that it is hardly possible for just one or two compilers to deal with them. The same holds for reviewers, as will be obvious from the character of most of my above remarks. I therefore refrain from discussing other maps here. Perhaps the most fundamental difficulty with an atlas such as this is the fact that both knowledge and lack of knowledge are mapped in an inseparable way. Or, to put it in the words of the reverse of map 19: "it is quite difficult to map what is known without obscuring the facts". In spite of this difficulty and the above-mentioned weaknesses of the maps, the publication of the atlas can be described as an impressive leap forward in the linguistic geography of the area. Its editors were obviously aware of the preliminary character of certain parts of the maps included in it. In several places they emphasize the future possibility of purchasing improved individual maps. It is to be hoped that future linguistic work will make the necessary improvements possible. If the atlas makes one thing perfectly clear, it is the fact of the tremendous wealth of languages in the area and the necessity of studying

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 312 Hein Steinhauer these in a more than just impressionistic way before many of them follow the fate of the numerous languages that have already disappeared or are in the process of extinction.

March 1986

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelaar, K. A., 1981, 'Reconstruction of Proto-Batak Phonology', in: R. A. Blust (ed.), Historical Linguistics in Indonesia, Vol. I, NUSA. Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages in Indonesia, Vol. 10, pp. 1-20. Bawa, I Wayan, 1982, Bahasa Bali di Daerah Propinsi Bali: Sebuah Analisis Geografi Dialek, Ph.D. dissertation, Universitas Indonesia, mimeograph. Bender, B. W., 1971, '', in: Sebeok (ed.), pp.426-465. Dahl, O. Ch., 1951, Malgache et Maanjan: Une Comparaison Linguistique, Oslo. Dyen, I., 1971, 'Malagasy', in: Sebeok (ed.), pp.211-239. Jonker, J. C. G., 1896, Bimaneesche Spraakkunst, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (VBG) 48-2. Josselin de Jong, J. P. B. de, 1937, Studies in Indonesian Culture, I. Oirata: A Timorese Settlement on Kisar, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Vol. XXXIX. —, 1947, Studies in Indonesian Culture, II. The Community of Erai (Wetar) (Texts and Notes), Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschap- pen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Vol. L-2. Keraf, G., 1978, Morfologi Dialek Lamalera, Ende-Flores: Arnoldus. Kuipers, J. C, 1982, Weyewa Ritual Speech: A Study of Language and Ceremonial Interaction in Eastern Indonesia, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. Nothofer, B., 1980, Dialektgeografische Untersuchungen im West-Java und im westlichen Zentral-Java, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —, 1981, 'Central Javanese Dialects', paper presented at the Third International Con- ference on Austronesian Linguistics, Bali, 19-24 January 1981. —, 1982, Dialektatlas von Zentral-Java, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Onvlee, L., 1973, Cultuurals Antwoord, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Vol. 66. Prentice, D. J., and A. Hakim Usman, 'Kerinci Sound-changes and Phonotactics", in: Wurm& Carrington (eds.), pp. 121-163. Raffles, Th. S., 1978, The History of Java, with an introduction by John Bastin, Oxford University Press (first edition 1817). Sebeok, Th. (ed.), 1971, Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 8, The Hague: Mouton. Steinhauer, H., and A. Hakim Usman, 1978, 'Notes on the morphemics of Kerinci (Sumatra)', in: Wurm & Carrington (eds.), pp.483-502. Stokhof, W. A. L., 1975, Preliminary Notes on the Alor and Pantar Languages (East Indonesia), Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 43. Suparman Herusantosa, 1980, Bahasa Using di Kabupaten Banyuwangi; Suatu Studi Pendahuluan tentang Dialek Geografi, Singaraja, mimeograph. Teeuw, A., 1951, Dialectatlas van Lombok, Jakarta. Verheijen, J. C, 1967, Kamus Manggarai, I, Manggarai-Indonesia, The Hague: Nijhoff. —, 1977, Bahasa Rembong di Flores Barat, Jilid I-III, Ruteng, mimeograph. —, 1982, Komodo: het eiland, het volk en de taal, Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Vol. 96. Verin, P., C. P. Cottak, and P. Gorlin, 1969,'The Glottochronology of Malagasy Speech Communities', Oceanic Linguistics 8-1, pp. 26-83.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access A ustronesian Geographical Prospects 313

Wurm, S. A., and Lois Carrington (eds.), 1978, Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings, Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 61. Wurm, S. A., and K. McElhanon, 1975, 'Papuan Languages Classification Problems', in: S. A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, Vol. I, Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Scene, Pacific Linguistics, Series C, No. 38. Zollinger, H, 1850, 'Verslag van eene Reis naar Bima en Soembawa, en naar enige plaatsen op Celebes, Saleijer en Floris, gedurende de maanden Mei tot December 1847', VBG 25, pp. 5-224.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access