SSD 13:2 2017 66 andcommunity, andculture language of theworld by extentbuilt thewords istoalarge theyspeak(1929,209). of arewoven.tradition, andhistory writesthatpeople’s Edward Sapir perception acommunity’s culture, canbeseenasafabric intowhich thethreads of Language communities, persist tothisday. Filipino of Proto-,descent from thevalue cultural features, structure particularly communities Batanic sincetheir inthe kinshipsystemof transformations Despite significant activities, rituals, relate tokinship. that andtraditions locusof astheprimary where itserves communities, kinshiprelations inBatanic of the physical houseisseenasareproduction residence. Moreover, of rule of thespeakers, interms particularly inthebehavior changes of of Proto-Philippines andProto-Malayo-Polynesian. development asareflection isanalyzed This for type(alsoknown asHawaiian fromthegeneration type)reconstructed is adeparture This kinshipsystem. Batanic theancestral (also known asEskimotype), which of isaretention kinship cultural aspectssuchaskinship.certain AllBataniccommunitiesfollowalinealtypeof alsoin but significant inlinguisticstructure exhibit similarities notonly other, thegroups have Batanic maintainedclose languages contactamongeach communities. Sincespeakers of inpresent-daydaughter kinshipsystemandtracesitstransformations Proto-Batanic the reconstructs languages, thisstudy Batanic collectedfor Based onkinshipterminologies olt xmn atclrgopswyo ie hsi h rms fthewords isthepremiseof life. This group’stool toexamineaparticular way of sincethe1930sonwards, isaneffectivechallenged that language itisrecognized aperson’s hasbeen thoughtandactiononhis/herlanguage of the dependence kinship, Batanes, ethnolinguistics, historicallinguistics, culture language, kinship inBataniccommunities Savaxay andthelanguageof Maria Kristina S. Gallego Maria KristinaS. KEYWORDS ABSTRACT AR AR AR AR AR TICLE TICLE TICLE TICLE TICLE 1 While

ISSN 1655-1524 Print 66 – 94 SOCIAL SCIENCE DILIMAN ISSN 2012-0796 Online 13:2 July–December 2017 The Batanic languages: Yami, Bataniclanguages: The Itbayat, Ivatan, andIbatan day communities. itsdevelopment inpresent- system andgive abasicethnolinguisticdescriptionof kinship theProto-Batanic of limitations, Itriedto undertake areconstruction research ineach community. Batanic-speaking ethnographic Withthese theBatanicwhich kinshipsystem, requires anextensive an accurate descriptionof still preliminary. Duetolimitedfieldwork, may thedatapresented notgenerate thispaper, linguisticdata, inmanyrespects, is by meansof can bereconstructed onthefieldwork ispresented undertaken, intheappendix. other information consultants, thelanguage aswell as of profile verified thedata.The observation andfield interviews and English)which consultantstranslated.In-depth language aword list(presentedinFilipino native kinshipterminologies, Imadeuseof Specifically, andfieldobservation. interviews toelicit informant evidence from questions: Proto-Batanic-speaking community. Specifically, thi the thepossiblekinshipsystemof in theBataniccommunities andreconstructs sibling, spouse, sibling, According toRobert Blust,universal such kinshipcategories, as languages. of agroup of byone begins examiningkinshipterminologies (PA records. written peoplebeyond thelimitsof of agroup lifeof the cultureandway of salient inthespeakers’ community. meansthatitispossibletoreconstruct This asculturallyandenvironmentally present-day isregarded languages of group a (i.e., of theparentlanguage) intheprotolanguage form which areconstructed This subgroup, knownThis asBatanic, Bashiic, orVasayic, iscomposedof:(1)Yami, . withinthePhilippinelanguage constitute asmallanddiscretesubgroup spoken languages ontheislandsborderingTaiwanThe andthePhilippines and thingstechnique ( Formosan languages), IslandSoutheastAsia,thePacific,Formosan languages), andMadagascar. N Since this paper primarilyintendstoexplorehowSince thispaper aspecificculturalfeature Conclusions aredrawn withsupporting primarily fromlinguisticdata, How diditdevelop inpresent-day Batanic-speakingcommunities? (3) Proto-Philippinesand How doesthisrelatetothekinshipsystemof (2) theProto-Batanic community? isthekinshipsystemof What (1) In reconstructing aspecificculturalfeaturesuch askinship,In reconstructing forinstance, ), the parent language of all the languages spoken inTaiwan allthelanguages (i.e., the of ), language theparent and 2 Proto-Austronesian? uhhsbe oei aysuis si h aeo Proto-Austronesian Such hasbeendoneinmanystudies, asinthe caseof in-law and (1993, 26). This paper e paper (1993, 26).This child, are combined to form culture-specific categories, such culture-specific as arecombinedtoform wörter undsachen wörter xamines culture-specific kinshipcategories xamines culture-specific ) incomparative historicallinguistics, in s study addresses thefollowing addresses s study father, mother, 3 4

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 67 SSD 13:2 2017 68 (Source: CartoGIS,ANUCollegeofAsiaandthePacific,2017) Figure 1:ThelocationofBataniclanguages thedifferent Bataniclanguages. presents thelocationof (MoriguchiTsuchida 1983; 1987;Tsuchida etal. 1989;Blust1991).Figure etal. 1 Sabtang); and(4)Ibatan,spoken ontheisland Batan aswell ason theislandof of Isamorong (spoken part inthe southern Batan),and (3) Ivatan, of withdialectsIvasay part (spoken inthenorthern spoken onOrchid Island,Taiwan; (2)Itbayat, spoken onItbayat Island,Batanes; of Babuyan Claro, Babuyan Cagayan of Reconstructing theancestralkinshipsystem Reconstructing toProto-Batanic: From Proto-Austronesian (1) Proto-Batanic *apu ‘grandparent, grandchild’, fromPA *apu‘grandparent, (1) Proto-Batanic for theProto-Bataniclanguage. present-day Bataniclanguages. Table terms 1below shows thereconstructed of Proto-Batanic, theancestrallanguage thekinship systemof of reconstruction Bataniclanguages, Ipresenta of kinshipterms Comparing contemporary straightforward. Proto-Batanicisfairly kinship. thekinshipsystemof Thus,reconstructing of features, cultural asinthedomain certain of commonalitiesinterms with apparent alsocorrelates thepresent-day Batanicgroups closelinguisticrelationshipof The approximately (Li2001,277). archaeological 1000yearsago recordsoccurred whichBatanic) hasbeenfairlyrecent, accordingtolinguistic, ethnographic, and (i.e., Proto- ancestraltothemicrogroup theproto-language that thebreak-upof Reid 1971; 1966; indicates RossThis andHidalgo 2005). Cottle 1958;Hidalgo linguisticsimilarity(Cottleand of exhibitahighdegree All Bataniclanguages *** Unreconstructed possibility for the category parent’s possibilityforthecategory Unreconstructed sister(i.e., aunt) Cousin, familyonfather’s side Younger sibling Uncle Eldersibling *** *(ka)teysa Child,niece/nephew,*maraqan son/daughter-in-law Sibling Mother, aunt,mother-in-law, someone’s mother *wadi Father, father-in-law *kaka Grandparents, grandchildren *(ka)ketex *anak *ina *ama meanings Associated *apu Kinship term generations. The affixes affixes generations. The derivations cover that several anumberfeatures becauseitexhibits of tosemantic withregard tootherkinshipterms isthewidestcompared term of the kinship term thekinshipterm of signalsrespectanddeference. Intheanalysis olderthantheEgo) generations (two torefer ormore totheoldergeneration theterm clitics. useof The affixes or observable, specificallyinthe useof are the daughterlanguages derivations Certain andgrandchildren. in used toreferbothgrandparents This meanstheaffix This ‘grandparent/grandchild (reciprocal)’ ‘grandparent/grandchild Table Proto-Batanic for kinshipterms Reconstructed 1: –en apo –en derives collaterality, which isalsoapplicable toother in Itbayat,Yukihiro Yamada that (1970)claims this and 5 in– mark lineality and generation, respectively. marklinealityandgeneration, 7 The term *apu wasreciprocally term The 6 N *apu

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 69 SSD 13:2 2017 70 apu-ku (2) Proto-Batanic *ama ‘father or the father’s generation’, orthefather’s fromPA(2) Proto-Batanic*ama‘father ama-wun *ama-en ‘father-in-law’Proto-Batanic ama-ng ama *ama Proto-Batanic ‘father’ in-apu apo *apu ‘grandchild’ Proto-Batanic ape-n ‘grandparent’ *apu Proto-Batanic apu-ng p-apu Batanic languages and can be reconstructed forProto-Batanic. andcanbereconstructed Batanic languages younger thantheEgo. derivations These generation may alsoapplytoother kinship terms, such as kinship terms, Filipino), and as torefer tofather-in-law, usedinotherBataniclanguages are the term such of inform) the difference etymologicalsourcebecauseof adifferent from the father’s thatare assumedtocome Non-cognates (i.e., terms generation. to referred originallyhadawiderscopethat generally theterm possible that usedtorefertheEgo’s theterm father-in-law. of shows areflex It is ‘father’ iciaroa This term isprimarilyusedtorefertheEgo’s term This father. Itbayat also Ibatan two levelsthe generation below theEgo. ‘my andwas grandchild’ usedinavocative sense. may have originallymeant term The genitive inIbatan. pronoun Itbayat Ibatan Yami, Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong. Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong Yami, Itbayat. Yami. people with respect (Maree and people withrespect(Maree Tomas 2012,53). used asavocative ortoold inIbatantorefergrandparents term Ibatan. olderthantheEgo. oranypersontwo generations grandparent Dictionary, isusedinItbayat asvocative fora theterm term work their ongoing ontheAustronesianregarding Comparative According Trusselgrandparents. toRobert BlustandStephen Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong. and for grandfather accordingtosexby adding isalsodifferentiated category affix typically used in kinship terms toindicate collaterality.affix typicallyusedinkinship terms inYami, Shortened form of of form Shortened . A combination of the morphemes themorphemes . Acombinationof . Also used asavocative term. katugangan . Combination of the morphemes themorphemes . Combinationof Similar totheItbayat, Ivasay, thisisalso andIsamorong, biyenan ama inIbatan(anIlokanoloanword). inIvasay andIsamorong (possibly from borrowed ‘father’ and ‘father’ akes . The affix . The ‘woman’grandmother.for apoan ni Possibly avocative for originally term ina (Providence UniversityThis 2008). ‘mother’; andtheaffix in– marks generation, specifically marks generation, apu ama and ‘father’ and ku , the1 in– akay N st *amax derives person –en, ‘man’ an ka-m-na-n man-kakteh *anak-en‘niece/nephew’ Proto-Batanic anak *anak ‘child’ Proto-Batanic PA from *anak ‘childorthechild’s(4) Proto-Batanic generation’, ina-wun *ina-en ‘mother-in-law’Proto-Batanic ka-m-ina-n *ka-m-ina-en‘aunt’ Proto-Batanic ana-ng ina *ina Proto-Batanic ‘mother’ *ina‘motherorthemother’s PA(3) Proto-Batanic from generation’, katugangan law). SimilartoProto-Batanic *ama,howe morewidelytothemother’srefers (mother,generation aunt,andmother-in- mother. possibly *ama,evidence theterm alsoshows LikeProto-Batanic that ‘mother, mother’s sister’ except Itbayat, namely usedtorefermother-in-law languages *ina arecurrently intheBatanic respectively) and aci son/daughter-in-law include in-law). the category Non-cognatesfor Ego’s child andthechild’s (i.e., andson/daughter- niece/nephew generation tothe Proto-Batanic*anakrefers and‘father’, for ‘mother’ theterms of son, daughter’ and PMP*anak‘child, offspring; in Yami in orboy togirl usedtorefer (generally by theparentalgeneration possibly parallel withYami.possibly parallel Ibatan. Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong, 2008). ina ni X’ and X’ which literally means‘sibling’s child’. of nephew, form isactuallyashortened theterm Yami Yami, Ibatan Itbayat,Ivasay, Isamorong, –en. Itbayat. Yami Ibatan Yami, Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong. inIbatan. . While the form theform While . . A combination of the affix theaffix of A combination . andisusedtorefersomeone’s mother(Providence University . Also usedasavocative term. A combination of the morphemes themorphemes of Acombination minan manugang . Minan iciaroa inIbatan(anIlokanoloanword). Proto-Batanic *ina refers primarily totheEgo’s primarily Proto-Batanic*inarefers is further analyzed as a shortened form of of form analyzedasashortened isfurther in Yami, in anak isnotevidentintheYami word forniece/ biyenan The derivation of the term ismost theterm derivation The of ver, non-cognates of Proto-Batanic ver, non-cognatesof ka– . inIvasay and andIsamorong, ‘fellow, thesame company, of ina Similartothewidescope ‘mother’ andtheaffix ‘mother’ manganak nokakteh N *aNak N vai *ina mo or ,

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 71 SSD 13:2 2017 72 ka-keteh kakteh kaktex *(ka)ketexProto-Batanic ‘sibling’ *(ka)ketex(5) Proto-Batanic ‘sibling’ mang-anak-en anak-en *anak-en ‘son/daughter-in-law’Proto-Batanic ka-anak-an anak-en pam-angk-en also literally meanssiblinginYamialso literally ( affix the isanalyzedas acombinationof relationship betweensiblings. term The Batanic *kaktex ‘sibling’ thus needs further investigation. ‘sibling’ thusneeds further Batanic *kaktex Proto- Tosame (intestine)’. of clearly theetymological establish history between thattherelationship languages. suggests bilabial stop[b]intheBatanic This withthe languages) Batanic [x] forItbayat [h]fortherestof andglottal thefricative similar, (velarvery but historically, of thereisnocorrespondence by thespeakers asrelatedtotheword otherBataniclanguages. Moreover, theword of in Yami friends, close todescribevery andarealsousedtoreferspeakers phrase matter. The Yami may shedsomelightonthis metaphorusedby speakersa particular of theword isstillunclearatpresent, of recent innovation. theetymology While ‘sibling’ may beamore historically, andtheassociationwithmeaningof Isamorong. ItispossiblethatProto-Batanic rootthe bare doesnotseemtoappearinsomeBataniclanguages, such as *ketex means ‘sibling’ inYami, of thereflex may While mean‘fellow sibling’. combination of the affix theaffix of combination case canbeseeninFilipino, where (derived from ‘cut from the same intestine’. The two forms ( twoThe ‘cut fromthesameintestine’. forms ka– Yami. Ibatan. Ivasay, Isamorong, Itbayat. and –en. Itbayat. – vowel tochange tothecontemporary undergoing harmony Ibatan –en. Itbayat combination of the morphemes themorphemes of combination term Ivasay, Isamorong kakteh ‘fellow, thesameX’ and company, of Ivasay, Isamorong. –en . A combination of theaffixes of . A combination keteb pamangkin A combination of the morphemes themorphemes A combinationof . A combination of the morphemes themorphemes Acombinationof . A combination of the morphemes themorphemes Acombinationof . and ‘cut’). Thus, kakteh docinai kakteb i loarfe fPP*nk euto the PMP*anak,aresult of of isalsoareflex . Perhaps. aloanword fromFilipino. However, the ka– may be regarded asfolketymology. may Aparallel beregarded A combination of the morphemes themorphemes Acombination of andtheword kakteh/kakteb ducinai sbig ftheintestines(literal)’isused ‘siblings of keteh kapatid kaketeb/kakteb This term generally referstothe generally term This ), andthusProto-Batanic *ka-ketex pang–, anak, *ketex carried a different meaning adifferent *ketex carried patid ‘sibling’ isoftenanalyzedasa ka–, anak, kakteh ketex. ‘cut’, literally ‘cut from the literally ‘cut’, kakteh ka anak anak – and ‘cutfromthesameX’ may alsoliterallymean The latter morpheme latter The issometimesanalyzed and ‘child’ andtheaffix ‘child’ andtheaffix and and –en keteh –en kakteb . . mang–, anak, (with – ) appear an en ) . (9) Proto-Batanic *(ka)teysa (9) Proto-Batanic ‘cousin’ maraan maran ‘uncle’ *maraqan Proto-Batanic *maraqan‘uncle’ (8) Proto-Batanic adi wari *wadiProto-Batanic ‘younger sibling’ *wadiPA(7) Proto-Batanic ‘younger sibling’,from aka-ng kaka *kaka‘eldersibling’ Proto-Batanic PA from *kaka‘eldersibling’, (6) Proto-Batanic which hasdeveloped tomean‘uncle’ inBataniclanguages. butrelatedtothemalegeneration, originallymeantsomethingdifferent term Itisassumedthatthe isyettobefound. languages totheBatanic external Pr of In addition,theetymology Proto-Batanic *ina‘mother’. parent’s sister/auntotherthanthereflexes of of wasfoundforthecategory term asymmetrical kinshipsystem,asnoseparate producesan thisterm of reconstruction as Proto-Batanic*maraqan.The totheEgo’s torefer languages consistently inBatanic uncle, reconstructed thefather’s theterm generation, tomalekinof refers of bifurcation for this category, in which the cognate of theword bifurcationforthiscategory, inwhich of thecognate of kasinsin totheEgo’s torefer Batanic languages cousin.Ibatan exhibitsanon-cognate, category younger sibling. forthiscategory. Ivasay aterm category doesnotreflect thesamesex’ cousin of younger thesamesex; parallel and PMP*huaji‘younger siblingof brother’ which insex. highlightsdifference show loanwords ‘elder fromChinese, namely ate ‘eldersister’andkuya Proto-Batanic totheEgo’s *kakarefers eldersibling. Eliciteddata Ivasay from reconstructed The theProto-Bataniclanguage. factor inthekinshipsystemof thesamesex’ PMP *kaka ‘elder siblingof , which, isaloanword Ilokano. from Moreover, Yami shows evidence Ibatan. Yami, Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong. Ibatan. rhotacism toavoiced, alveolar, trill[r]. Yami, Itbayat, Isamorong. Ibatan. Yami, Itbayat, Isamorong. Vocative. Proto-Batanic *wadi is reconstructed forthe Proto-Batanic *wadi isreconstructed oto-Batanic *maraqanoto-Batanic isobscure, asacognate The voiced,The alveolar, stop[d]underwent While Proto-Batanic *ama ‘father’ also Proto-Batanic isfound inthe *(ka)teysa Relativeimportant an plays age N *kaka ‘elder sibling’and N *Suaji ‘younger *Suaji sibling’ maran/maraan isfound teysa/

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 73 SSD 13:2 2017 74 similar derivational history, inwhichtheaffix Ivasay, Isamorong greatly, but most of theseareloanwords fromotherlanguages, such asFilipino greatly, butmostof totheEgo’s usedtorefer aretheterms vary problematic in-laws. terms The Yami, theaffixcombineswithword Isamorong, and combineswithanothermorpheme, X’ considerably inBataniclanguages, vary ‘spouse’ namely:Yamifor kin.For alsosometimesusedforaffinal are Non-cognates instance, theterms kin(non-cognates)(11) Affinal possibility) ‘aunt’ (unreconstructed (10) *** kataysa kateysa *(ka)teysa‘cousin’ Proto-Batanic as a combination of the morphemes themorphemes as acombinationof ‘of thesamemother’.Inasimilarfashion,Proto-Batanic*kateysaisanalyzed fellowship,pertinence, orcompanionship, thushaving meaning theliteral posing kaposing tey– teysa kateysa an openquestion. Batanic *anak‘child’s includingson/daughter-in-law’. generation, Batanic *ina‘mother’s mother-in-law’; including generation, andProto- *ama ‘father’sProto-Batanic includingfather-in-law’; generation, Proto- forconsanguinealkin,namely: terms reflexes foraffinalkinare of categories suchterminologies, may nothave beenthecaseforProto-Batanic, asthe kinship Batanic ishighlightedincontemporary of theconcept While asymmetrical kinshipsystemforProto-Batanic. an reconstructing possibilityinsteadof anunreconstructed category itisbesttoleave foruncleandcousin, this forms than thereconstructed other thiscategory theexistenceof noevidencetosupport there iscurrently While Proto-Batanic*ina. parent’s otherthanthereflexes of sister/aunt, of word,kinship system.Noseparate however, tothecategory isfoundtorefer *kateysa ‘cousin’ show thatcollateralityishighlightedintheProto-Batanic Proto-Batanic*maraqan‘uncle’ andProto-Batanic forms reconstructed The ‘each’ and is yet to be found, but it appears as a combination of themorphemes asacombinationof isyettobefound,butitappears alsomeans‘motherorhen’, combiningwiththeaffix i sdt ee ocuisfo h ieo thefather, while isusedtorefercousinsfromthesideof i sdt ee ocuisfo h ieo themother. term The isusedtorefer tocousinsfromthesideof Itbayat, Ivasay, Isamorong. Yami. bahay asa kakuvut; i h aeo Ibatan,withbothwords‘house’. In meaning inthecaseof ‘one’. How such derivation remains developed asakinterm andIbatan kuvut kabahay ka– osong in the case of Itbayat, Ivasay, inthecaseof and ka– and . These terms, . These however, share a , which meansmortar. More ‘fellow, thesame company, of teysa . The original meaningof The . kaosong ka – toindicate ; Itbayat, posing/ Murdock, PP Robert Lane(1961)andWard Goodenough(1955). those of andProto-Malayo-Polynesiankinship systemforProto-Austronesian include mother’s of reconstructions brother(1980,205–247).Otherstudiesregarding his thedaughterof marries inwhich theEgo cross-cousinmarriage, typekinship,generation foranancestralpreferential alsoargues characteristic of totheexpectedbilateraldescent contrary forProto-Austronesian, groups Proto-Malayo-Polynesianfor Blust’s (1949,229). descent work, which reconstructs by Peter George typekinshipsystemreconstructed Murdock for ageneration 152–253). While the shift to a neolocal rule of residencemaybeanalyzedasa of theshifttoaneolocalrule While 152–253). thelinealtype” (1949, of residence tendstobeassociatedwiththeterminology usedforlinealandcollateral kin.Murdock, moreover,terms claimsthat “neolocal fromtheextendedkin, thusgiving risetodistinctkinship separation suggests discussed previously, ischaracterized asmatrilocal. Linealkinship, however, residence. Generation typekinshipsystem,as kinship, of such asrule aspects of (and similarly, theEgo’s hasimplicationsonother This andcousins). siblings usedfortheEgo’s are that is, andtheparents’siblings differentterms parents collaterality ishighlighted, typetolinealtype, inwhichgeneration of theconcept h isi ytmo PP the kinshipsystemof inreconstructing linguisticdata by MariaKristinaGallego, which makes useof proposed by Kroeber issupported reconstruction Proto-Batanic. The the level of )seeninBataniccommunities, notonlyatpresentbutalsoupto (also known asHawaiian from different thelinealtype(or kinship),distinctly kinship typeof thegeneration ischaracterized asafeatureof kin (1919).This aswell usedforlinealandcollateralkin, asforconsanguineal andaffinal terms and Ilokano. example,for InIbatan, cross-cousin argued for by Blust (1980) on the level of PA arguedforby Blust(1980)onthelevel marriage cross-cousin of however, marriage, preferential matrilateral of (1949,214).Interms et al.2009).AccordingtoMurdock, residencealsoentailscommunity matrilocal PAalso claimedtoapply is residence of rule hiswife)(1949).This moves inwithornearthefamilyof residence(i.e., thehusband of ancestral community practicedamatrilocalrule kinship systemforPP Significantchanges,forms. however, reconstructed The canalsobeobserved. seen inPP terms canbetracedback toPAterms word manugang If we consider the determinants of kinship terminologies proposedby kinshipterminologies of we considerthedeterminants If From PP From the set of reconstructed forms for Proto-Batanic, majority of thekin Proto-Batanic, for majorityof forms reconstructed From thesetof manugang refers toson/daughter-in-law. borrowed fromtheIlokano are These H (Gallego 2015,493–495). (Gallego H H , a reflex of PMP *tuRaN ‘kinsman, relative PMP*tuRaN‘kinsman, (undefined)’. of areflex , follows the generation type system, which suggests thatthe which typesystem, suggests follows thegeneration , the Proto-Batanic kinshipsystemunderwent, theProto-Batanic ashiftfrom H proposed by Alfred Louis Kroeber reflects common proposedby LouisKroeberreflects Alfred H (2015).Kroeber’s asabasistoargue studyalsoserved N which datesasfarback as5000to4500BP(Jordan N and PMP, and are thus retentions of ancestral andPMP, andarethusretentionsof katugangan refers toparents-in-law, and N cannotbe

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 75 SSD 13:2 2017 76 pueaaakkvt auu auu kabahay kayung/ipag kakuvut katayug Ibatan Isamorong manugang kakuvut manganaken katayug manganaken Ivasay kakuvut; kumpari/ am anaken Itbayat bayaw/ asawa biyenan brother/sister-in-law manugang son/daughter-in-law Filipino parent-in-law spouse English descentsuch assiblingsandcousins. direct lineof parents, or(2)collateralkin,relatives children, outsidethe andgrandchildren; adirectline, asingrandparents, by meansof lineal kin,orkinrelatedtotheEgo either(1) into: categorized Consanguineal kinarefurther by marriage. formed by and(2)affinalkin,orrelativesconsanguineal kin,orrelatives blood; formed groups. Batanic thekinshipsystemof of interms suggest Philippines, Itbayat, Ivatan, namely andIbatan,whattheterminologies the presents how developed thenomenclature inBataniccommunities of forProto-Batanic, thissection kinshipterminologies From thereconstructed and theirimplications Bataniclanguages inpresent-day Kinship terminologies inProto-Batanic. linealterminology development of inthe historicallyasreflected it isalsopossiblethatthisshifthappened innovationrecent intheBataniccommunities byWestern broughtabout influence, Collateral Lineal osnpna aas;ktya aas kasinsin kamnan;ikit kataysa kamnan anak maraan kataysa; kamnan; kaanakan anang pamangkin apuku anak amang maran kataysa; kamnan; maran;uncle pamangkin ina maran;uncle inapu akang/adi pamangkin; pinsan ama anak pamangkin kaka/wari tita apung niece/nephew tito inapu ina cousin kuya/ati ama anak papu apu/inapu Ibatan aunt kaka/wari; Isamorong kapatid; uncle kuya/ate anak ina papu; ama brother/sister apo Ivasay nanay/ina sibling; tatay/ama grandchild child Itbayat papu mother father Filipino lolo/lola grandparents English The gathered kinship terminologies may bedivided intotwo (1) kinshipterminologies gathered categories: The Table 3: Terminologies for Table languages inBatanic Consanguinealkinterms 2: ia kumari hipag Consanguineal kin of Batanic groups Batanic Consanguineal kinof fia i fBatanic groups kinof Affinal nwnama/ina inawun maysa pinsan anaken kakteh; auntie pinsan kakteh; auntie kakteh; kuya/ati kaktex; wn ynn ynnkatugangan byenan byenan; awun/ affinal kininBataniclanguages affinal lolo/lola maraan terms terms toone’sreferring father andmother-in-law,respectively, the arederivations of As such,similarities withthoseusedforconsanguinealkin. toparentthose thatrefer andson/daughter-in-law, formal exhibitobservable particularly affinal Someterms, for kin. various terms of the existence the basisof in Proto-Batanic, over which was carried inthedaughtercommunities. ftesitfo eeaintp fkinshipinPP typeof ageneration theshiftfrom of arecalled grandparents For thefatherandmothershare similarterms. example, both thesidesof is, bifurcation isignored,that kinfrom consanguinealkin terms, In thecaseof that is, theparents, based onthedistinctionbetween one’s own parentsandthesiblingsof collateralityishighlighted, mother. however, Data, shows of thattheconcept term term forwhich hecoinsthe socialorganization, of thehouse asaform Strauss of ClaudeLévi- derives statement of This fromtheconceptualization (1995, 3). as basiccognitive thinkandexperiencetheworld” modelsusedtostructure, andserve significationandaffect “thelocifordense webs of and thatbothare Jones writethatthehouseislinked bothphysically tothe body andconceptually, Bataniccommunities.Janet Hugh- CarstenandStephen the kinshipsystemof 2012,40). (Kao mean ‘family’ vahay/bahay theexpression which EdwinValientes analyzesasderivations of called (Murdock 8).Spousesare 1949, formed family unitsare that through marriage in thedaughterlanguages. daughter-in-law’which inIbatan, meanstha kin, such as and child-in-law. loanwords reflect foraffinal languages At present,someBatanic theparent of inthecategories thegroup, particularly of kinship terminologies affinityisnotdistinctin of Proto-Batanic, theconcept means thatatthelevel of have andconsanguinealkin.This affinal originallybeenusedtorefercertain derivation of ‘family’, namelyItbayat of illustratedbyunits. encodetheconcept how isfurther Bataniclanguages This social andthatthephysical , houseiscentralinforming the basisof meaning ‘housecompanion’ (Valientes on starts impliesthataffinity 2006).This The concept of affinity is also highlighted in the Batanic kinship system on isalsohighlightedintheBatanickinshipsystem affinity of concept The Such nomenclature is suggestive of the centrality of thephysical housein thecentrality of of Such issuggestive nomenclature Marriage facilitates sexualprivile facilitates Marriage house societies ama and kakuvut ama/amang ‘father’ and , literally (2006).Similarly, literally ‘one house’ , Yami encodes kamnan byenan inItbayat, Ivasay, andIsamorong,or anak and to describe certain kinshipsystems (1983,184). Inthis todescribecertain ‘child’. These similarities indicate that a single term must term similaritiesindicatethatasingle ‘child’. These for ‘uncle’ and ‘aunt’, respectively. ‘uncle’and‘aunt’, for indicative isclearly This ‘parent-in-law’ inIvasay and andIsamorong, ina savaxay, ina papu / anang ‘mother’. Similarly, or Ivasay andIsamorong for ‘father’ and‘mother’, respectively, and apung for both the sides of thefather andthe for boththesidesof ge andeconomiccooperation,itis ge t affinityhascometobemorediscrete anaken H ‘son/daughter-in-law’ isa savahay, toalinealkinshipsystem kabahay andIbatan amawun inIbatan, both manugang asa kavahay asa kavaxay/ and kabahay maran/ inawun ‘son/ to ,

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 77 SSD 13:2 2017 78 and thewoman selecttheirrespective thecommunity known hiseloquence. for Boththeman older malememberof are rarely practiced, but the concept of is retained toacertain isretained brideservice of practiced,buttheconcept are rarely At present,bridepriceanddowry 2000,19). hisbride(Hornedo to thefamilyof Itbayat, themanwould give allhispossessions 1983,39).Inthecaseof (Llorente toherparents would go tothewife, andhalf thisgoes of Half (2000, 15). tothewoman’s oftenwiththemanpaying gold bride priceinmarriage, family aswell life. asfamily marriage advice totheirchildren regarding thecouple, giving totheparents moved qualitiesof arguingforthegood from without the the has seenmany changes sincethen, especially inthe roleof Ivatan. In Itbayat, this practice of pre-marriage arrangement iscalled arrangement pre-marriage Ivatan. InItbayat, thispracticeof of withthepractice starts theseactivities. Marriage example, asthecentral thephysical locusof houseserves thehouseasaphysicalconcerning structure. onthehouse, centered aswellthesocialandritualisticaspects the kingroup Batanic communitiesas iseverydaywhat andcommonplaceinthefamily. Going beyond nomenclature, It isthemainlocusnotonlyforritualisticaspectsofkinshipbutalso as thehouseisobjectificationofthisrelationship(Lévi-Strauss1984,195). isbynomeanscoincidental, languages unitinBatanic tothefamily torefer ‘house’ Batanic social organization viaLevi-Strauss’sBatanic socialorganization the framing thepossibilityof are derived fromtheword suggest for‘house’, which and‘spouse’, usedfor‘family’ Bataniccommunities, theterms the caseof we consider can beanalyzedinanewlight(Carsten&Hugh-Jones 1995,22).If through Lévi-Strauss’s model of through Lévi-Strauss’s modelof analyzingkinship. Thus, itis frameworksnot fullycompatiblewithtraditional of manySoutheastAsiansocietiesare of kinship systemandsocialorganization hypogamy,For andhereditary-election. instance, the marriage, close-distant principles, such as: patrilineal–matrilinealdescent,filiation-residence, hypergamy- framework, the Lévi-Straussformulates paychakavahey kayun laiddown. thecoupleare Itisthenuptothe andbadtraits of that thegood begins. In the case of theIvatans, thistraditionisledby the begins. Inthecase of (Yamada thediscussionbetween thetwo Oncepermitted, 1995,443). thewoman toenterthehouseof askingpermission with themanandhisfamily outinproverbs (Yamadais typicallycarried traditionbegins 1995,xxxi).This According toFlorentinoHornedo, pre-HispanicIvatans usedtoimposethe If we consider rituals associated with marriage inBataniccommunities, we considerritualsassociatedwithmarriage for If to defend theoneherepresents.Thus, todefend the kayun , and thecouplemust choose their has become the norm at present,inwhich at thediscussionhas hasbecomethenorm house societies paychakavahey house societies canbeseeninthehabits andinteractionof , which literally means ‘to talk/discuss’ in kayun house as a union of incompatible house asaunionof , anditisduringthe that such types of socialgroups such that typesof kayun house societies. kayun well. However, thistradition plays acentral roleinthe Clearly, theuseof kayun kayun . Paychakavahey paychakavahey 8 kayon ,

usually an , which to the communities, Inpre-colonialBatanic thewedding, thebrideandgroom. similar of thispractice towedding Lateron, changed feastsbeingheld inthehouses 19). used totake 2000, placeoutsidethecommunity (Llorente1983,39;Hornedo thathewouldexpectation helpinthehouseholdwork. towork forhisbride’s themanisnotobligated While degree. family, thereisan the wifeisanonlychild; otherwisetheylive withthe parents ( fortheEgo’s distinctterms we seethedevelopmentwith thisseparation, of Similarly, from his/herparents’siblings(auntsanduncles). theEgo of separation collateralityishighlightedfromthe of from thisbehavior thattheconcept own. This rule of residenceisalsoseeninYami 2012,40). (Kao of rule own. This their move outandlive intheirown houseespeciallyoncetheyhave childrenof typical forthecoupletolive withthehusband’sbut theyare to family; expected itis themarriage, of At thestart fromtheother consanguinealkin. separately Inthisset-up,(1949, 152). thenuclear family(i.e., parentsandchildren)lives residence of by typically characterized aneolocalrule are as Batanicgroups, someoneelseafter. marry time, allowing themanto periodof was only tolastacertain marriage arranged are an caseswherein theirchildren. There of themarriage parents mayarrange 2012). was punished; howeve 1996;Benedek1991; (Gonzalez Kao colonization 1966;Llorente1983;Hidalgo Orchid Island,have beenmonogamous,the Yami even before Spanish of of thefamilyunit. couple, andeventually, themarried the physical therelationshipof housereflects communities Batanic as theideaof the couple. supports This thatbothevents considered are majoroccasionsfor and housebuildingsuggest parallelisms inritualspracticedatboththewedding 1996,98).The wine’ (Hidalgo foodaswell theowner to serve as where itistheresponsibilityof (Yamadathe tradition isalsopracticedduringhousebuilding, This 1995,441). of isanessentialpart married thecouplegetting cows, thehouse of at orgoats animalssuch aspigs, slaughteringof pre-colonial timesuptothepresent.The 40). the bride’s parentsvisitingthegroom’s parentsonthelastday 1983, (Llorente day, thebrideonfifth and six days, visitingtheparentsof withthegroom thebride(Yamada celebration usuallylastedforfive 1995,441).The to house of In the case of the Itbayat, newly married coupleslive theItbayat, newly married withthe In thecaseof The wedding is an important affair intheBataniccommunities. wedding affair The isanimportant Weddings Murdock proposes that communitiesMurdock such thatfollow proposesthat alinealkinshipsystem, Various communities, notethat Batanic accountsandethnographies including thewedding ceremony, from of Communal eatinghasbeenanessentialpart paychakavahey/kayon ama and ina ) andtheparents’siblings( , began with the groom asking permission tovisitthe askingpermission withthegroom , began r, divorce was practiced. Inaddition, maran and husband’s mother kamnan house societies palek ). 9 wife’s mother Itisevident ‘sugarcane (Yamada , where if

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 79 SSD 13:2 2017 80 anang theEgo: for parents of distinguished intheterms jobs such work asbusiness andcorporate (42). aswellon thehillside, introduced shellandcrabcollectingonthetidalflat, asnewly jobs, however, andbetelnut planting such thatareconsideredneutral, asfruit wife doingamalejobwould are also bringhumiliationtoherspouse(41).There exclusive, extent gender laboristoalarge anda thisdivisionHe addsthat of forYami: roles similar gender outlines 1996,96;Llorente1983,36).Hsin-chieh Kao their mothers(Hidalgo within thefamily, while tofish boys girlsstayathomewith withtheirfathers go such asyamand potatoes, aredoneby women (1996, 102–107). Inaddition, done by which cultivating sustainingthehousehold, men, includes while rootcrops thehouseespeciallyduringtyphoonsareexclusively of maintaining thestructure 1998, Moreover,men (Alamonetal. 70). according toHidalgo, warfare and towomen,while andboatmakingisexclusively restricted fishing large doneby As anexample,weaving gendered. thetraditionalIvatan headgear traditional knowledge from parenttochild. passingdown continuingthepracticeof landisalsoaway of Owning apieceof 97–98). (1996, sustainingitself unitcapable of can standasanindependent to cultivate. writesthat thatthenuclear family thisistoensure CesarHidalgo 102). 1996, the physical consideredtheirdomain(Hidalgo houseisgenerally thehousehold;and thus, thesustenanceof communities aremostlyincharge of with themother. Such asthewomen isnotsurprising, arelationship inBatanic thephysical house pointstotheconnectionof This (xxxi). residence of such rule theterm 1995, xxxi).Yamada emphasizesthepeculiaruseof (staple). (2012,41) andsupplying sweet potatoandwet tarofarmland work istakingcareof walking tohusbands’role as distance. Corresponding sticks, within10–20minutes digging which aremostlydoneinsideornearvillages assigned towomen, theseincludelivestock cultivating feeding, with andharvesting women’s safety. (though by nomeanseasy)jobsare anddangerous Lesslaborious away from villages, thesakeof soitissaidthatmenmonopolisethesejobsfor workplace. indistantorriskyareas Besidesfatigue, malejobsareoftenperformed yakan with simplehand-tools, mostlyoccasional.Fishing andsupplying exhaustingbut etc., boatandhousebuilding, whichmaintenance,logging, are traditionallydone water channel preparation, pasturing, farmland goat . .malejobsincludefishing, . If we examine kinship terminologies of the four Batanic groups, sexis thefourBatanic groups, of we examine kinship terminologies If withinthehouseholdandcommunity labor isattimes division of The land communities inBatanic foreach toown family apieceof It isthenorm ‘mother’. Sex, however, is ignored in the category of thegrandparents, as ‘mother’.Sex,however, of in thecategory isignored (side dishes)arehusbands’ routine work, andtheoceanisanexclusive male yakan ama/amang suppliers, wives’ routine ‘father’ and ‘father’ mother vakul torefer to isby and kanen ina/ share some of the household work. The husbandandwife thehousehold work. inworking take The turns someof share while alsooccasionallyworking inthefield.Similarly, thefather isexpectedto businesses andareatthesametimeemployed, met somewomen whoarerunning Duringfieldwork, sex. I of regardless thehousehold, work tosupport together but ontheotherhand,itcanalsobesaidthatall membersofthefamily ask advicefromhersisterormother(1998,47). that amanwould typicallyconsulthisbrother orfather,while awoman would sharingsensitive withthem.NestorCastroetal. write comfortable information thesamesex, astheperson would typically feelmore family members of forconsulting foradvice, isapreference thefamily there memberof particular thefamily. anindividual Incaseswhere wouldother members consulta of is themostjustifiablemeansofdecidinginheritance(Alamonetal.1998,65). lots after his/herparents. alsootherswhobelieve are thatthedrawing There of which ashe/sheisexpected tolook theyoungest child inheritstheproperty cases wherelandwould bedividedamongthesiblings;andthereareinstancesin thePhilippines, thereare oneachdepends family. InBataniccommunities of 2012, Facilitating 39–40). necklaces) landinheritance, (Kao however, typically (e.g.,pieces andsilver inheritfemaleproperties helmets)whiledaughters agate In Yami,inheritance isalsogendered. (e.g., sonsinheritmaleproperties gold labor, thesecommunities. thedivision Aside from of thekinshipsystemof of as outlinedpreviously. aspects salientincertain Genderdivisionisparticularly behavior role stillapplies, gendered gender-free terminologies, exhibit generally siblings.younger with his/herrelative seniority, instance, tolookafterhis/her for is expected factorinthiscategory, eldersibling, The comparedtosex. is themorecrucial thatrelativerefer totheEgo’s age suggest sibling. younger terminologies These kaka/akang as siblings, encodedinBataniclanguages of daughter. tothecategory With regard asonlyterminologies, asingle term, themselves, asdiscussedabove. theparents of roles andobligations inthespecific correlations has direct facilitating theEgo’s behavior towards it his/herparents, important, butmore theparents, acentralfactorin assexisnotonly theroleof cannot besaidof sex, thesame of regardless thesame inthefamilyisgenerally and grandmother papu/apung andthegrandmother, isusedtorefer toboththegrandfather only oneterm kaktex/kakteh On the one hand, physiological differences dictate traditional gender roles;On theonehand,physiological dictatetraditionalgender differences howanindividual regards of interms Gender distinctionisalsoimportant (andmostPhilippine)languages tonotethatwhileBatanic It isimportant inkinship factor thechild, isnotanimportant sex of For thecategory ‘rnprn’ hs tcnb adta hl h oeo thegrandfather of Thus, whiletherole itcanbesaidthat ‘grandparent’. is used to refer totheEgo’sis usedtorefer while eldersibling, ‘iln’ itnto ple ntrso relative inwhich age, of adistinctionappliesinterms ‘sibling’, anak, is usedtorefer toone’s sonand wari/adi is usedto

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 81 SSD 13:2 2017 82 applied in Ivatan in the past, as seen in the name of applied inIvatan inthepast,asseennameof teknonymy was also andthecommunity.family Itappearsthatthispracticeof thereby acquiringmoresenioritywithinthe promotion tothenextgeneration, significant inthelifeofaperson,especiallyelderly(2012,57).Italsosignals areconsidered after theyacquiretheirnewnamesbecausenamechanges According toKao,Yami itisaninsultforthe names tobecalledby theirformer becoming name may alsochange if The the private 70). andthepublicspheres(1998, thefamily,both menandwomen bothin areexpectedtowork forthebenefitof activities kept are gender-exclusive inBataniccommunities, itcanbesaidthat the parentscontinue theirwork.while certain Alamonetal.writethat Arnold his/hersiblings, takes over while theresponsibilitiesinhousehold, care of and caringfortheirchildren eldersibling,once oldenoughtotake athome. The form kinship relations witheach Moreover, kinshiprelations other (1998,69). form kinship terminologies system (1964). According to BatanicAlamon etal., inmany communities residents about claim theflexibility, suchand Geertz kinship elasticity, andadaptabilityof onebelongs to.contrast tothefamily Geertz isalsoconnectedwithwhat This significant,in ismore aparent,orgrandparent) oneisunmarried, (i.e., if grade than onone’smore kingroup. is, toaparticular That inclusion thegeneration thevalue placed onone’scommunities, such generation, practiceisindicative of thevalues heldby thegroup. InBatanic of asareflection be regarded amnesia genealogical term the whichWhile (1964). makes flexible inclusionorexclusion toakingroup amnesia, writethat suchpracticeleadstogenealogical Geertz andClifford Geertz in SabtangIslandtheeighteenthcentury. Dangat named Syamanmaria (from (from child, Maria.InItbayat,their firstborn thefatherwilltake thename example,for that acouplenamedRufina andFrancisco will take thenameof child (Yamada means, theirfirstborn 57). 2012, This xxx–xxxi;Kao 1995, name of teknonymy,and Yami which involves throughthesystemof parentstakingthe (1996, 30). kaka/akang accordingtoCastro,kin fromthesamegeneration, itisthe and inthecaseof Within thefamily, onone’s seniorityandauthority depend andgeneration. age Teknonymy inakinshipsystem.Hildred afunctionalpurpose alsoserves The importance placedonone’s importance The islinguisticallyevident inItbayat generation papo ama niMaria ‘father of Dangat’), a historical figure who led a revolt against theSpaniards wholedarevolt ahistoricalfigure against Dangat’), ‘fatherof ina niMaria Sinanmaria ‘grandparent/s’ are treated as people of highestauthorityinthefamily; aspeopleof aretreated ‘grandparent/s’ Syapenmaria ‘elder sibling’ whoholdsauthorityover the (from (from (from ‘father of Maria’), andthemotherwilltake thename of ‘father si amaniMaria ‘mother of Maria’). In Yami, Maria’). In willbenamed thefather ‘mother of (from si inaniMaria

may have negative connotations, teknonymy may also Syamanmaria si aponiMaria fte fMaria’),andthemotherwillbe ‘father of ‘mother of Maria’). The grandparents’ The Maria’). ‘motherof and gadaeto Maria’)inYami. of ‘grandparent Sinanmaria Amandangat wari/adi are firstborn children, arefirstborn ‘younger sibling’ ‘younger (from Amanmaria Inanmaria ama ni 10 communities. Various describethe ethnographies problems (Castroetal.1998,47). andsensitive difficult more consultedintimesof orgrandparents parents thefamilysuch asone’sone’s siblingsorcousins, withmoreseniormembersof usuallydiscussedwithone’sproblems are for instancewith first, owngeneration individual issuesorproblems, resolvespersonal seniorityalsoplays arole. Personal tohowan With regard 57). 2012, technicalhighly jobs(Kao andspecialized arealsotheoneswhohold They areonlyexpectedtolisten. generations younger elders whoreachthename public affairs, theirwords holdauthority. InYami, forinstance, the community. eldersarealways The andin treatedwithrespectanddeference; only seenwithinone’s own kingroup, but by everyone isalsorecognized inthe communities, Philippinecommunities. isalsoseeninmany seniorityisnot This about one’s history, genealogical incontrasttoone’s grade. generation thus, Bataniccommunities,kin group; inthepast, moreflexible are particularly a of thecommunity treatedpracticallyasmembers are of means thatmembers This 2012,56). (Kao respect tonon-kinsasasignof are alsousedtorefer the community. Underthe the Nextto 2000). 1996; Hornedo 1966;Llorente1983;Hidalgo (Gonzalez territory rclna ie,btas eas f h xetdrsosblt ftheindividual of responsibility theexpected times,precolonial alsobecauseof but difficultyinaccessing neighboringcommunities in of is seenasaresultnotonly within his/herown community. Community inBataniccommunities endogamy however, endogamous, which the individual are meansthat marries stillgenerally whichsub-tribes andotherterritories, impliesexogamy (1996,97).Communities, inthesixteenthcentury.Spanish colonizers the hierarchy precedethecomingof andnobilityinBatanicgroups of concepts Thus, the itcanbesaidthat 2000,49). andwar (Hornedo conflict times of communities, tothesemore powerfulfor instance, communitiesin typicallygo communitiesthere are consideredmore thanothers. prominent Smaller skill, wisdom,andintellect. distinguished 1996, 93).To bespecific, leadershipcanbegiven of toaperson stratification overlap, but one 1983, 30–31).Itisevident thatpoliticalandsocial inBatanic languages ol fthecommonersbecome souls of Onthecontrary,heaven 1996,93). aftertheydie(Hidalgo andbecomestars the mangpus and onthelowest level the slaves. are The mangpus Power, authority, inthese andstratificationmayalsobeobserved salientinBatanic while particularly Seniority marked by generation, In relation to this system of stratification, Hidalgo mentions marriage across mentionsmarriage Hidalgo stratification, In relation tothissystemof Stratification isnotonlyseenwithinthecommunity butalsooutsideit,as andthe arethe mapolon mapolon ) arethenobles, anditwas to believed their soulsgo that mapolon who holdresponsibilityover theothermembers of Syapen is not restricted in terms of social mobility(Hidalgo of is notrestrictedinterms anyitu , have therightto speakinpublic,while the are the orspiritsthatwander (Llorente theearth cailianes manyukuyukud who are warriors andworkers, arewarriors who mangpus (which includesthe a h ue fthe of astheruler syapenkwa, or

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 83 SSD 13:2 2017 84 Foreign influence onkinshipterminologies Foreign influence and closefriends, such astheItbayat groups incest, such casesarestillseeninsmallercommunities. between cousinsas marriage stillrecognize whilegroups violated, meaningthat somecommunities, instances in which are therearealsoafew incesttaboos of thesmallsize thecommunities, however, stillfollowthissystem. Becauseof of A significantportion Ivatans’, especiallywiththeriseintourismandmigration. htfrinifunehsas lydarl ntedvlpeto theBatanic hasalsoplayed aroleinthedevelopmentthat foreigninfluence of section,itcanbeobserved presentedintheprevious From kinshipterminologies 45), such as andAlamonetal.(1998, (1996,97–98), by Llorente(1983,36),Hidalgo identified road repairs,building, tasks. andotherdifficult alsosmallergroups are There kayvayvaynan isalsoseen intheIvatan 1998,66).This (Alamonetal. such asfarming various for toprovide activitiesand friends, support inthecommunity, are formed between Ivatans and intermarriage number isanincreasing of There salient amongthoseincenterssuch asBasco. isparticularly cases).This certain in outsidethecommunity areincreasing(orperhapseven preferred marrying discussed earlier, however, isnotstrictly imposed, endogamy andcasesof to maintainstablelivelihood withinthecommunity. BasedonHidalgo’s account solidarityamongthemwas well-developed” thushelps 18).Endogamy (1983, of orfieldswas work donebythe difficult thecommunity. inthefarms spirit The Llorentewritesthat“muchin theethnolinguisticgroups. AnaMariaMadrigal of thecommunity norm isalsoanimportant of cooperation amongthemembers towards his/hercommunity. units, independent arelargely families While as a good framework foranalyzingtheBataniccommunity.as agood house-based societies; arementionedhere, andwhileonly afew thismodelserves which centeronthephysicalorganization housefitwithLévi-Strauss’s ideaof societies. communities Batanic as weddings, andthusbringusback toourideaof affair, activity to particular istreatedasanimportant comparable groups. This significantwork outbyHouse buildingisaparticularly such carried organized work,fishing, andeven ceremonialpractices. agricultural such asconstruction, asaseasonalcooperative‘port’, active group duringthefishingseason(2008). of alsowritesaboutthe one another’.MariaMangahas comprise anothercooperative called group around 10to15teenagers such thelandfor cultivation. of asinpreparing A group two tothree members, inlessdifficulttasks, working together comprised of Since almost all residents of the of Since almostallresidents These organized cooperative work groups carry out various types of work, outvarious cooperative typesof organized These work carry groups A number of features of theBatanickinship systemandsocial features of A number of payuhvan or literally ‘friendship’, a larger community assistanceunitforhouse or literally‘friendship’, alarger comprised of aboutfive members, and comprised of idi/ili payohoan, ‘community’ areconsideredfamily pivaxvaxsan vanua which literally means‘helping , withtheliteral meaning , comprised of family , comprisedof mayuhu 11 or Ipulas kapayuhwan ‘non- house Retentions andinnovations kumare withtheintroduction of groups Batanic system of used forone’s ownparentsandchildren. Ritualkinarealsoaddedtothekinship byenan and Bataniccommunities. of toone’sgodparents own child, hasbrought anexpansiontothekinshipsystem ritualkin,such as theaddition of this regard, rituals,certain such which asbaptism, was brought by theSpanishcolonizers. In through ithasexpanded but toincludethoseformed by andmarriage, blood restrictedtothoseformed kinshipisnolonger Similarly,magnified. of theconcept inthe houseandthecommunity Thus, roles are gender insiblingterms. sex of Chinese, theterms broughtbybut the factorinsiblingterminology, withtheinfluence important ethnolinguistic groups.For instance, we have seenhow relative plays age an the of brought significantchanges inkinshipterminologies certainly on theneighboringBabuyan Islands(MareeandTomas 2012). Foreign influence kinshipbutalsoinotherdomains, spoken sinceitisthemainlanguage of terms languages. inIbatan,notonly Ilokano, influence inparticular, exhibitsgreat Batanic languages, FilipinoandIlokano, particularly canbeseeninthelexiconof examined. Similarly, groups used inthefour from Philippine borrowed terms ‘ritual brother’(fromSpanish),and from relative age, with the use of gendered terms, namely terms, gendered relativefrom withtheuseof age, factor,instance, has come toplay aside insiblingterminologies, sex animportant bydaughter languages, mainlybroughtabout contact withothergroups.For whichYami isretainedin andItbayat. Innovations, however, canalsobeseenin Proto-Batanic, for namingviateknonymy may alsobereconstructed system of residence. The of andrule relative age, degree) aswell (toacertain asendogamy collateralityand of kinship systemareretained,such asdistinctionsinterms theProto-Batanic Significant aspectsof (1949). terminologies reconstructed theancestralkinshipsystemwas proposedonthebasisof of the features bybehavior, of to Murdock, aredetermined andthusalimitedreconstruction Proto-Batanic topresent-day Bataniclangua developed from previoussectionspresentedhowThe kinshipterminologies sister’ and foreign origin,such as other Philippineethnolinguisticgroups.Terms of American contact,butalsointhewayand communities situatedvis-à-vis are isnotonly toChinese, restricted Spanish, influence foreign kinship system.This ate ‘parent-in-law’ and ‘ritual sister’. ‘elder sister’.Also, pronouncedby affinityhasbecomemore the useof kuya ‘elder brother’ (from Chinese), ate and manugang kuya have alsogiven risetohighlightingthedistinction ‘son/daughter-in-law’, distinctfromtheterms auntie and ges. according Kinshipterminologies, uncle kumare kumpari (fromEnglish)arecommonly kumpari ‘ritual sister’ and and kuya ‘ritual brother’ and ‘ritual brother’ kumare ‘elderbrother’ serving as serving ate kumpari ‘elder

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 85 SSD 13:2 2017 86 in detailby ZeusSalazar(1981;1985). isdiscussed a Filipinoissupposedtoactingiven interpretation This situation. how propriety’which influences as‘senseof other hand,itcanalsobeanalyzed orfeasts(Andres1994,64). Onthe debt justtopleasevisitorsduringparties into going in anegative light,such asinhow Filipinosoverspend tothepointof thecommunity (Jocano 1989;Kikuchi 1989). members of individual tobehave isexpected butalsotoall tohis/herown notonly kingroup or valuesadapted tofitindigenous andprinciples. coreFilipinovalues The of which are modified and concepts thiscanbeanalyzedasforeign English, from respectandfriendship. borrowed terms theseareevidently While as asignof esteem’, esteem’, othertraditionalaside from concepts, namely Filipinos. two terms, These relations of theinterpersonal favor isalways of apart a asreturning ‘debt’, values Itisfree thenegative (1977). from connotationof traditionalFilipino inthecontextof ‘gratitude/solidarity’ is bestanalyzed as ‘principle ofreciprocity’(Andres1994,190–191),accordingtoVirgilioEnriquez, of ritualkinsuch as of thecommunitywhile theconcepts 2015,499).Inaddition, aswell (Gallego of alsoaccommodatesfriendsandmembers thisrelationship by bloodandmarriage, Filipinos. For toone’s instance,while kinshiprelationscommonlyrefer relatives the kinship andcommunity entrenched intheconsciousnessof stilldeeply are brought by culturesinthePhilippines, foreign underlying fundamental concepts Batanic communities, stillapply. such itisevident that concepts Despitechanges and individual towards andcommunityRespect, his/herfamily (1989). obligation, the theexpectedbehavior of concerning Filipino kingroups, particularly communities. Felipe LandaJocano seve presents ntne n al i/e les eadeso kinshiprelations, instance, of onecallshis/herelders, regardless relations withpeopleoutsidehis/herkingroup. InBataniccommunities, for kinship-liketo thepeoplearoundhim/her,we say canclearly thathe/sheforms we observe cametothePhilippines.colonizers If even relationship existed before theSpanish thatargued asimilarkindof inner perception’, inner perception’, pakikibaka of of following by Enriquez theframeworkand behavior reconceptualized patterns, katarungan

‘embarrassment’ and ‘embarrassment’ Sikolohiyang Pilipino Hiya eetoso ancestralFilipinovalues inBatanic canalsobeobserved Retentions of utang naloob can also be translated as ‘shame’, which, canalsobetranslatedas‘shame’, ontheonehand,canbeseen bahala na or or

‘justice’, and ‘resistance’, or ‘debt of gratitude’ are centralinkinshiprelations, andin gratitude’ or of ‘debt kagandahang-loob or ‘determination’, or ‘determination’, kumpari ‘Filipino Psychology’ (1992). ‘Filipino Psychology’ utang naloob kapwa kalayaan and or ‘shared identity’, or ‘sharedidentity’, kumare kumare or ‘shared humanity’, humanity’, or ‘shared or or ‘debt of gratitude’ arecentraltohow an gratitude’ or‘debtof

‘freedom’, comprisecoreFilipinovalues‘freedom’, sama/lakas ngloob Utang naloob are Spanishinfluences, clear itcanbe how apersonbeha pakikisama ral features thatcharacterize features ral 5 or pakikiramdam

or karangalan ‘debt of gratitude’ or gratitude’ of ‘debt or

‘resentment/guts’,

‘companionship/ auntie ves inrelation or or ‘shared ‘ and dignity’, uncle hiya Conclusion further illuminate thesubject. illuminate further linguistics.from extensive stillneededto studiesare Inthisregard, ethnographic Batanic andtraceitsdevelopment inpresent-day communities, thedataismainly Proto- kinshipsystemof theancestral thisstudyistoreconstruct of main goal basic ethnolinguisticdescriptionswere madeforBatanic communities. Sincethe historicallinguistics. following theprinciplesof languages of reconstruction through the equalimportance, biologicalthrough , also, but of upthepast”asinarchaeology, mutationsthrough “digging orexamininggenetic behavior. prehistory,Reconstructing for not only instance, ismadepossible isalsoan effectivelanguage toolthroughwhich we aspeaker’s canunderstand (andtheinverse onlanguage behavior dependent aswell), isnotentirely but that Hypothesis, itistrue theSapir-Whorf andagainst to theargumentsfor back we go labor. If inheritanceanddivision of asinthoseregarding gendered, thekinshipsystemsremain butsomeaspectsof (suchfree assiblingterms), is notabsolute. For relatively are instance, gender- Batanickinshipterminologies Filipinocommunities. as docorevalues of now, power, such asthoseconcerning authority, inthecommunity, andleadership andprinciplesthatpersistuntil concepts areindigenous and socialorganization aspectssuch cultural but itisalsoevident askinship. incertain Value structure thefourcommunities isnotonlyrestrictedto linguisticstructure, relationship of indicates thatsimilarity intheirkinshipsystemsat theclose present.This of Batanes ahighdegree theystillshare andOrchid Island, communities of kinship. AsforthedaughterBatanic toalinealtypeof a generation change from Austronesian andProto-Philippine communities, tothe specificallywithregard Proto-BatanicfromtheancestralProto- sincethedescentof can beobserved would aswell. inkinshipnomenclature Thus, bereflected majortransformations in thefamily. Alongwithchanges inthekinshipsystem, itisexpectedthatchanges the motherandfatherforinstance, shows thatsuch similarly kinaretreated torefertwo distinctkin,such boththesidesof a singleterm asauntsfrom but alsototherole thesemembers play inthefamily. Inasimilarway, theuseof towards theEgo theaforementionedkin, inthebehavior notonly difference of toone’s usedtorefer seen intheterminology father andunclewould pointtoa individual isexpectedtobehave towardsFor his/herkin. example, thedistinction Similarly, (1949). group particular inhow an such systemisdirectlyreflected a that andfeatures characterizekinship nomenclature thekinshipsystemof ther Murdock, Based ontheargumentsof I amaware thatAs such, my islargely limitedtolinguisticdata. only study andbehavior therelationshipbetween tostressthat language It isimportant e exists an intimate relationship between relationship e existsanintimate

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 87 SSD 13:2 2017 88 Endnotes 9 4 3 2 1 7 8 6 5 other works. Gumperz andLevinson(1996),LeePinker(2007a2007b)amongmany following foradiscussionofthisissue:KayandKempton(1984),Lakoff (1987), (2009, 1962). etal.,however,Jordan tagYami asapatrilocalsocietyintheirphylogeneticstudy the tradition. arrangement, exhibitsasemanticshiftinIvatantorefertheperson carryingout The term which originallyreferredtotheprocessofpre-marriage kayon/kayun, Blust &Trussel (ongoing). Reconstructed formsfor PA forms: phonetic descriptionsofsomesymbolsusedinthereconstructionProto-Batanic Starred forms[*]areusedtoindicatereconstructedterms.Belowapproximated 2008). The dataforYami comesfromtheYami DictionaryProject(ProvidenceUniversity detailed discussionofthisdebate,seeReid(2017). Blust (1991,2005)positseverallexicalinnovationstosupportthesubgroup.Fora lack ofinnovationsattributedtotheprotolanguage.Oncontrary, Zorc(1986)and PP ancestor ofallPhilippinelanguages.ReidandRossargueagainst Philippine languagescontestthevalidityofasingleprotolanguagethatservesas Linguists suchasReid(1978,1982)andRoss(2005)workingonthehistoryof amongotherworks. See Blust1980,1995andBellwood1996, Crowley (1997),andHarrison(2003). prehistory. ForathoroughdiscussionoftheComparativeMethod,seeFox(1995), foraclearerpictureofspeechcommunity’sfrom archaeologyandgenetics, suchasthose divergence oflanguagesandinsteadreliesonextra-linguisticevidence, treated asresidue(Harrison2003).Inaddition,themethodisunabletodate transferred throughborrowingordiffusion andareoftenunaccountedforthus may arisesimplybychance;and(3)itemswhicharecontact-inducedorthosethatget grammatical objectswhichlargelyoperateonuniversaltendencies,thussimilarities ascomparedto and symbolicismoreindicativeofgeneticrelationships, since themethodreliesheavilyonlexicophonologicaldomain,whichisarbitrary rate ofchangemayobscurereconstructionsbeyondthisperiod;(2)linguisticobjects temporality inthesensethatitcanonlyworkasfarback10,000years,since form canbereconstructed.Thismethod,however, islimitedintermsof:(1) undoing thechanges(fromsoundtomeaning)theselanguagesunderwent;anearlier compares lexicaldatafromdifferent languageshypothesizedtobecloselyrelated.By to agroup.Thisfollowsthecomparativemethodofhistoricallinguistics,which Cultural reconstructionbeginswithaoftheprotolanguageancestral Hypothesis hassparkedahugedebateinethno known astheSapir-Whorf Hypothesis.TheinterpretationoftheSapir-Whorf Sapir’s ideasonlanguageandthought,alongwiththoseofBenjaminLeeWhorf,is xVoiceless, velar, fricative(retainedinItbayatwhileinnovatedto/h/elsewhere) *x Voiceless, glottal,stop *q Midtohighcentralvowel *e N andProto-Malayo-Polynesian(PMP)arederivedfrom - andpsycholinguistics.Seethe H basedonthe References Carsten, Janet, andStephenHugh-Jones,eds.1995. Carsten, Janet, andStephenTrussel.Blust, Robert, ongoing.“TheAustronesiancomparativedictionary.” Castro, Nestor. 1996.“Kapangyarihan,awtoridadatmoralidadsaImnajbu[Power, CartoGIS, ANUCollegeofAsiaandthePacific.2017.“BatanesBabuyan Islands.” ___. 2005.“ThelinguisticmacrohistoryofthePhilippines:Somespeculations.”In ___. 1995.“TheprehistoryoftheAustronesian-speakingpeoples:Aviewfrom ___. 1993.“Austronesiansiblingtermsandculturehistory.” 1991.“TheGreaterCentralPhilippines hypothesis.” ___. Blust, Robert.1980.“EarlyAustronesiansocialorganization:Theevidenceoflanguage.” Benedek, Dezso.1991. Bellwood, Peter. 1996.“Hierarchy, founderideologyandtheAustronesianexpansion.”In Andres, Tomas Quentin.1994. 10 Alamon, Arnold,NestorCastro,JanellaCacdac,andYvonne Malupa.1998.“Itbayat: 12 11 Online, http://www.trussel2.com/acd/, accessed19March2017. Philippines. authority, andmoralityinImnajbu].” islands, accessed2Oct.2017. Online map,http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/mapsonline/base-maps/batanes-babuyan- beyond. edited byHsiu-ChuanLiaoandCarlRubino,31–68 topics inPhilippinelinguisticsandanthropology, ParangalkayLawrenceA.Reid language.” en Volkenkunde 129. Current Anthropology folklore. Research SchoolofPacificandAsianStudies,AustralianNationalUniversity. James J.FoxandClifford Sather, 19–41.Canberra:DepartmentofAnthropology, the Origin, ancestryandalliance:ExplorationsinAustronesianethnography Giraffe Books. Pamumuhay samgatakey[Itbayat:Lifeinthefield].” Marcelino (2000)amongotherworks. For adiscussionofthisframework,seeEnriquez(1975)andPe-PuaProtacio- and Valientes (2016). For amoredetaileddiscussionoftheIvatanas , (2008) see Mangahas referringtohistemper.boil’, xxx–xxxi). Forexample,apersonisrenamed Apkombwar,kombwar ‘to and from apo habitonymy,i.e., namingafterone’s peculiarhabitorcharacteristic(Yamada 1995, In Itbayat,thenamesofgrandparentschangefollowingprocess NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress. Taipei: SouthernMaterialsCenter. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 149, no.1:22–76. The songsoftheancestors:AcomparativestudyBashiic 21,no.2:205–47. Dictionary ofFilipinocultureandvalues. IPEG 9, no.4:453–510. 2: 27–37. About thehouse:Levi-Straussand . Manila: LinguisticSocietyofthe Oceanic Linguistics IPEG Bijdragen totdeTaal-, Land- 4–5: 59–87. QuezonCity: , editedby 30,no.2:73– Current ,

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 89 SSD 13:2 2017 90 Hidalgo, Cesar, andAraceliHidalgo.1971. Hidalgo, Cesar. 1996. Harrison, S.P. 2003.“Onthelimitsofcomparativemethod.”In andShirleyCottle.1958. Cottle, Morris, Castro, Nestor, ArnoldAlamon,Yvonne Malupa,andJanellaCacdac.1998.“Ivatan: Jocano, FelipeLanda.1989.ElementsofFilipinosocialorganization. In Hornedo, Florentino.2000. andStephenLevinson,eds.1996. Gumperz, John, Goodenough, Ward. 1955.“AprobleminMalayo-Polynesiansocialorganization.” Gonzalez, Julio.1966. andCliffordGeertz, Hildred, Geertz.1964.“Teknonymy inBali:Parenthood,age-grading, ___. 2015.“Philippinekinshipandsocialorganizationfromtheperspectiveofhistorical Gallego, MariaKristina.2014.Tracing ancestryanddescent:Areconstructionofthe Fox, Anthony. 1995. ___. 1992. ___.1977. “Pakikisamaopakikibaka:UnderstandingthepsychologyofFilipino.” Enriquez, Virgilio.1975.“MgabatayanngSikolohiyangPilipinosakulturaatkasaysayan Crowley, Terry. 1997. City: Cognita TRC. City: Cognita Blackwell. historical linguistics, York: CambridgeUniversityPress. 4–5: 33–58. Pakikipamuhay samgatakdangpanahon[Ivatan:Livingaccordingtoseasons].” and society Batanes Isles. Linguistic SocietyofthePhilippines. American Anthropologist Great BritainandIreland and genealogicalamnesia.” 506. linguistics.” Proto-Batanic language.MAthesis,UniversityofthePhilippinesDiliman. Philippines Press. Bilingual EducationLeague,Berkeley, California,n.d. Paper presentedatthe“ConferenceonPhilippineCulture”,heldBayArea Journal [The foundationsofFilipinopsychologyincultureandhistory].” Press. Linguistic Monographs,3.Sydney:UniversityofSydney. From colonialtoliberationpsychology 29: 61–88.( , editedbyYasushi Kikuchi,1–26.QuezonCity:NewDay, 1989. Philippine Studies:HistoricalandEthnographicViewpoints Manila:UniversityofSantoTomas PublishingHouse. Linguistic reconstruction An introductiontohistoricallinguistics The makingoftheIvatans:culturalhistoryBatanes. The BatanesIslands. editedbyBrianJosephandRichardJanda,213–43.Oxford: Taming thewind:Ethno-culturalhistory ontheIvatanof 94, no.2:94–108. 57, no.1:71–83. The JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute The significantsoundsofIvatan. Manila:UniversityofSantoTomas Press. A tagmemicgrammarofIvatan . NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress. . QuezonCity:Universityofthe Rethinking linguisticrelativity. . Auckland:OxfordUniversity The handbookof General Education Philippine kinship Oceania . Manila: 63,no.4:477– Pasig New IPEG Maree, Judith, andOrlandTomas.Maree, Judith, 2012. Mangahas, Maria.2008.“Makingthevanua:CollectivefishingtechnologyinBatanesand Llorente, AnaMariaMadrigal.1983. Li, PaulJen-Kuen.2001.“TheDispersaloftheFormosanAboriginesinTaiwan.” ___. 1984. Moriguchi, Tsunekazu. 1983.“ApreliminaryreportontheIvatandialects.”In Levi-Strauss, Claude.1983. Lee, Penny. 1996. Lane, RobertB.1961.“AreconsiderationofMalayo-Polynesiansocialorganization.” Lakoff, George.1987. Kroeber, AlfredLouis.1919.“KinshipinthePhilippines.” Kikuchi, Yasushi. 1989.“Theconceptofcorporategroupincognatic forms:Dynamic Kay, Paul, andWillettKempton.1984.“WhatistheSapir-Whorf Hypothesis?” Kao, Hsin-chieh.2012.“Labour, life,andlanguage:Personhoodrelationsamongthe Jordan, FionaM.,RussellD.Gray, SimonJ.Greenhill,andRuth Mace.2009.Matrilocal Pinker, Steven.2007a. Murdock, GeorgePeter. 1949. ___. 2007b. Pe-Pua, Rogelia, andElizabethProtacio-Marcelino.2000.“SikolohiyangPilipino(Filipino Filipino, Ilokano,andIvatanindices Viewpoints an Austronesianarchetypeofsociety.” Manila: HistoricalConservationSociety. Languages andLinguistics Jonathan Cape. Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. American Anthropologist the mind. American MuseumofNaturalHistory 27–47. QuezonCity:NewDay. aspect inthePhilippines.”In Anthropologist Yami ofLanyu.”Doctoraldissertation,UniversitySt.Andrew. Biological Sciences residence isancestralinAustronesiansocieties. 71. edited byKasumiSharikahara,205–53.Kumamoto:UniversityofKumamoto. Island andNorthernLuzon:Archaeological,ethnographicallinguisticsurvey Viking. Classics. Psychology): AlegacyofVirgilioEnriquez.” Paroles données. The stuff ofthought: Languageasawindowintohumannature. Chicago: TheUniversityofChicagoPress. 56, no.4:379–412. The WhorfTheoryComplex:Acriticalreconstruction. 86,no.1:65–79. Women, fire,anddangerousthings:Whatcategories revealabout The languageinstinct. 276 (1664):1957–64. The wayofthemasks. Paris:Plon. 63, no.4:711–20. 2, no.1:271–78. Social structure Philippine kinshipandsociety A blendingofcultures:TheBatanes1686–1898. . Manila:SummerInstituteofLinguistics. Ibatan toEnglishdictionary, withEnglish, 19:69–84. Philippine Studies:HistoricalandEthnographic New York: HarperPerennialModern . NewYork: Macmillan. Asian JournalofSocialPsychology Translated bySylvia Modelski Proceedings oftheRoyalSocietyB: Anthropological papersofthe , editedbyYasushi Kikuchi, Amsterdam and NewYork: Batan American . London: 3:49– ,

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 91 SSD 13:2 2017 92 Yamada, Yukihiro. 1970.“AsemanticanalysisoftheItbayatenkinshiptermapo.” ___. 2016.“Vahay, Tawu, Anitoanethnoarchaeologicalstudyofthesymbolicdimension Valientes, EdwinA.2006.“Vahay, savahay, kavahayan:The“house”amongtheIvatans Tsuchida, Shigeru,Yukihiro Yamada, andTsunekazu Moriguchi.1987. Tsuchida, Shigeru,ErnestoConstantino,Yukihiro Yamada, andTsunekazu Moriguchi. Sapir, Edward.1929.“Thestatusoflinguisticsasascience.” ___. 1985.“Hiya:Panlapiatsalita[Hiya:Affixations andword].”In Salazar, Zeus.1981.“Wikaat Ross, Malcolm.2005.“TheBataniclanguagesinrelationtotheearlyhistoryof ___. 2017.“RevisitingthepositionofPhilippinelanguagesinAustronesianfamily.” ___. 1982.“ThedemiseofProto-Philippines.”In ___. 1978.“ProblemsinthereconstructionofProto-Philippineconstructionmarkers.”In Reid, Lawrence.1966. Providence University. 2008.”Yami (Tao) DictionaryProject.”Online,http:// Zorc, David.1986.“ThegeneticrelationshipsofPhilippinelanguages.” In ___. 1995. of the Ivatan houses.” MAthesis,UniversityofthePhilippines, Diliman. of theIvatanhouses.” Philippines, Diliman,QuezonCity, November26-28. of Batanes.”Presentedatthe12 words ofBataniclanguages. Department ofLinguistics,FacultyLetters,UniversityTokyo. 1989. Allen AganonandMa.AssumptaDavid,288–96.Manila:NationalBookStore. Isyu, pananawatkaalaman[NewdirectionsinIndigenouspsychology], Susan Cipres-Ortega,38–43.QuezonCity:UniversityofthePhilippines,Diliman. ng wika[Proceedingsofthe12thSeminaronpsychologylanguage], analysis oftheconcept‘‘hiya’’].” In konsepto ng‘‘hiya’’ [Languageandconsciousness:Anillustrativepsycholinguistic 2: 1–24. Malayo-Polynesian subgroupofAustronesian.” De LaSalleUniversity, Manila,February18. Presented attheBr. AndrewGonzalez(FSC)DistinguishedProfessorialChairLecture, National University. Amran Halim,LoisCarrington,andStephenA.Wurm, 201–16.Canberra:Australian Conference onAustronesianLinguistics Linguistics, ResearchSchoolofPacificStudies,AustralianNationalUniversity. edited byStephenWurm andLoisCarrington,33–66.Canberra:Departmentof Second InternationalConferenceonAustronesianLinguistics:Proceedings, yamibow.cs.pu.edu.tw/index_en.htm, retrieved19March2017. Linguistics. Paul Geraghty, LoisCarrington,andStephenA.Wurm, 147–73.Canberra:Pacific Papers fromthe4thInternational ConferenceonAustronesianLinguistics translation. of theLinguisticSocietyJapan Batanic languages:Listsofsentencesforgrammaticalfeatures. Ichbayat folkways(NokaonoononganaIchbayaten):Itbayattextswith English QuezonCity:Giraffe Books. An Ivatansyntax diwa Tokyo: UniversityofTokyo. : Isangpanglinggwistikanganalisissahalimbawang th 56:63–78. PhilippineLinguisticsCongress,Universityofthe . Honolulu:UnivesityofHawaii. Ulat ngiIkalabindalawangseminarsasikolohiya . Vol. 2of Papers fromthe3rdInternational Journal ofAustronesianstudies Tracking thetravelers Language Sikolohiyang Pilipino: 5:207–14. List ofselected Tokyo: FOCAL II: , editedby edited by , editedby Vol. 1 edited by Journal 1, no. , ACKNOWLEDGMENT ABOUT THEAUTHOR anthropologist but more important, asanIvatan himself.anthropologist butmoreimportant, Valientes hisideasandinsightsintotheIvatan for culture, asan notonly Iconsultedforthisstudy, Bataniclanguages andEdwin paper, speakers of between Ibatan and Ilokano spoken on the island of BabuyanClaro, Cagayan. between Ibatan andIlokano spoken ontheislandof and theJapanese language thePhilippinesDiliman,wheresheteaches inLinguistics courses University of Linguistics, Maria KristinaS. of isassistantprofessor, Gallego Department the editorsof Grants. Ialsowishtoextend tothetwo my gratitude anonymousreviewers and andDissertation Thesis and Development, the through fundingsupport for Research theViceChancellorfor of Philippines Diliman,throughtheOffice the theUniversity of theChancellorof I would like tothanktheOffice of Social ScienceDiliman . Her current researchHer current isonthecontactsituation for theircommentsonhow for toimprove my

GALLEGO – Savaxay and the language of kinship in the Batanic communities 93 SSD 13:2 2017 94 Appendix: Profile of the language consultants thelanguage of Appendix: Profile Ibatan Isamorong spoken Otherlanguages address Current Ivasay Hometown Sex Itbayat Age due tolimitedtimeinthefield. convenience sampling Consultantswere selectedonthebasisof data gathered. were donetovalidate the subsequentinterviews data elicitationandrecording, presentedinbothEnglishandFilipino. Aftertheinitial kinship terminologies (2014). Consultantswere inGallego asked totranslate language the Proto-Batanic somefeatures of of thereconstruction for gathering in conjunctionwithdata Fieldwork was doneinBasco, 2012,and1–17May Bataneson19–29April 2013 9FClyn aaa ac,BtnsIlokano, Filipino, English Ilokano, Filipino, English Filipino, English Basco,Batanes Basco,Batanes Calayan, Cagayan City Quezon Filipino, English Calayan, Cagayan F Filipino, English M Filipino, English Ivana, Batanes Basco, Batanes Mahatao, Batanes 19 Basco, Batanes M Ivatan, Filipino,21 English F Basco, Batanes Ivatan, Basco, Batanes Filipino, English Basco, Batanes 30 Ivatan, Filipino, English F Basco, Batanes 45 Ivatan, Basco, Batanes Filipino, English F Basco, Batanes M Basco, Batanes Itbayat, Batanes 59 Basco, Batanes Itbayat, Batanes 27 F 33 Itbayat, Batanes F Itbayat, Batanes M 62 M 27 28 30 ac,BtnsFilipino, English Basco, Batanes