Genetical Status of Relatedness Between Sambori and Teta Dialects Spoken in Bima Regency, West Nusa Tenggara

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research (JOSSAR) eISSN: 2735-1874 [Vol. 1 No. 2 December 2020] Journal website: http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

GENETICAL STATUS OF RELATEDNESS BETWEEN SAMBORI AND TETA DIALECTS SPOKEN IN BIMA REGENCY, WEST NUSA TENGGARA

I Gede Budasi1* and Ni Made Sri Indriyani2

1 2 Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Singaraja, INDONESIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Article Information: Abstract: Sambori and Teta isolects are spoken by their speech community who live at Lambitu District, Bima Article history: Regency, Indonesia. Their language classification status Received date : 19 November 2020 is not yet clear whether as two different languages or as Revised date : 24 November 2020 two different dialects. This article aims to describe: 1) Accepted date : 25 November 2020 the status of their language classification; 2) their Published date : 15 December 2020 uniting and differentiating phonological features, and 3) their uniting and differentiating lexical features. This To cite this document: study applied a comparative method. The obtained data were analyzed quantitatively using lexicostatistics and Budasi, I., & Sri Indriyani, N. (2020). GENETICAL STATUS OF language classification of Swadesh. The uniting and RELATEDNESS BETWEEN differentating features were qualitatively determined SAMBORI AND TETA DIALECTS using the description of their phonological and lexical SPOKEN IN BIMA REGENCY, similarities and differences; The study findings show WEST NUSA TENGGARA. that: 1) the status of the two isolects are as two different Journal Of Social Science Advanced dialects of the same language spoken in the regency; 2) Research, 1(2), 76-86. the uniting phonological features show that both of them have: (a) the same vowel phonemes: /ʌ/,/ɪ/, /ʊ/, /e/, /ɔ/, /ə/; (b) the same diphthongs: /ʌʊ/, /ʌe/, /ɪʌ/, /ʌɪ/, /eɪ/, /ʊʌ/; c) the same consonants: /p/, /b/, /f/, /t/ /d/, /h/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, /m /, /n/, /ŋ /,/k/, /g/, /?/, /r/, /s/, /y/, /w/; d) they possess clusters of two m-blends: /mp/, /mb/, and three n-blends: /nd/, /nt/, /nʧ /, and /kb/; and e) phonologically, Sambori dialect does not posses /kl/ and /nj/ cluster, while Teta dialect does. Based on Swadesh's word list, the lexical uniting features show that the two dialects have 98% cognates, and 2 % of their lexical features are in different forms.

Keywords: dialects, isolects, lexical features, phonological features.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

1. Introduction The subgrouping of languages in Indonesia, including in Bima Regency West Nusa Tenggara, has not yet been entirely done. However, some isolects in the area have been determined as languages or dialects. Budasi's study, which involved six isolects; Taloweri, Mbojo, Bima, Sanggar and Kolo, for example, showed that among them, only Bima, Sanggar, and Kolo isolects were quantitatively determined as different languages of the same family based on Sawadesh' language classification (Budasi, Indriani, & Sudirman, 2017). Mbojo and Taloweri were determined as two different dialects of the Bima language. However, Sambori and Teta isolects were not involved in the study. The reason is that in the previous study, no information about their existence was found.

Based on the researchers' preliminary observation in their study in 2019, Budasi and Indrani found that: 1) most people, including language teachers in Bima regency, said that Sambori and Teta isolects are two different languages spoken by their native speakers Lambitu District Bima Province. Their mutual intelligibility between Kolo, Sanggar, and bima Language speakers was so low. It means that they do not understand when they communicate with the speakers of the two dialects. Further, speakers of Sambori and Teta isolects were found to have high mutual intelligibility. So many of their vocabularies are mostly found the same and similar.

So far, a study about Teta isollect and its kinship relation to Sambori Isolects has not been done. However, some studies connected to Sambori have been done by some researchers. Among others were Arafiq (2019), Rosadi and Ermanto (2018), and Yustra et al. (2016). There are still different opinions among the experts toward the status of the Sambory language classification. Arafiq (2019), for example, mentions that status of Sambori is as a language spoken in Lambitu Bima regency. This study focused on identifying the syntactic properties and distribution of personal pronouns in the language. In the conclusion section of their study, Yusra, Lestari, Ahmadi, Asyhar, and Soemerep (2016) stated that Sambori was the Bima language dialect. This language classification was done based on their lexicostatistic calculation. That is, Sambori and Bima language reached 61% dissimilarity in terms of their cognates. It means that their similarity is 39%. Based on language classification suggested by Swadesh (1972) in Aditi (2016), this figure exists between 36% and 81%. According to Swadesh, if two isolects' similarity is placed in this range (36% to 81%), the two's status should be two different languages of the same family. In other words, not as two dialects of the same language.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

On the other hand, a study by Rosadi, and Ermanto (2018) concludes that Sabori is a Bima language dialect. Sambori was said to possess language variations compared to the Bima language. The other study was done by Yustra et al. (2016). This study focuses on phonological, morphological, syntactical, and sociolinguistic aspects of the Sambori language. They found that the language and its cultures are in an endangered situation due to internal factors, such as mixed marriage and migration, and external factors, such as economic, demographic, and political pressures). They also did a lexicostatistical analysis between Sambori and Bima language. They declared that the Sambori language is a dialect of the Bima (61.2% dissimilarity) or 38,8 similarity). Based on Swadesh's language classification, 38.8% cognate similarity should be in the different language category (language family). All of the findings mentioned above can be summarized that the status of the language classification of Sambori isolect is not yet clear, and no study has been done about Teta Isolects and its language classification between Sambori and Teta isolects. Thus the objectives of this study are to 1) describe the status of Sambori and Teta language classification, 2) describe their uniting and differentiating phonological features, and 3) describe their uniting and differentiating lexical features.

2. Literature Review Historical comparative linguistics (HCL) is the linguistics branch that studies the two isolects' status in their language classification. According to Bynon (1979) and Fernandez (1996), the branch of linguistics which can be used to overcome the matter is historical-comparative linguistics (HCL). Concerning this, Bloomfield (1981) mentioned that the comparative method applied in doing kinship relatedness of the isolects being compared. According to Anceaux (1964) in Fernandes (1996), HCL is a study concerned with word retention. Experts in HCL normally use 200 Swadesh’ word list (the result of revision by Blush (1980) to be taken in the isolects being compared. These basic words have universal characteristics that are not easy to change. The research using the quantitative approach usually applies to lexicostatistics. It is a technique in subgrouping languages that tend to statistically examine lexicons, then determine the subgrouping language based on the cognate percentage of isolect being compared. The analysis in this approach uses basic words that are not easy to change: the ones related to the human body, pronounce, emotion and feeling, weather and nature, number, and words related to household tools. In this approach, the linguistic evidence is used as the basis for subgrouping isolects quantitatively. The assumption underlies the number of vocabularies in one language that can be differentiated into two big groups. The loan word is not considered in this approach. The next step is to count the separating period of two isolects or languages. By applying glottochronological statistics (Keraf, 1984). The assumption that based that calculation is a set of words with universal characteristics and remains constant along the years around (Dyen, 1975).

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

Identifying the qualitative evidence mentioned earlier is researching the strongest evidence of the language being compared. Some experts believe that it has been very often happened that by using basic words inherited simultaneously from their proto-language, the subgrouping process often undergoes difficulties due to the number of similarities in meaning among languages being compared. A newer method, named the innovation method, was created to overcome the difficulties that may occur due to the number of similarities among languages being compared (Keraf, 1997). The assumption that becomes the basis for this new method is that, for a certain period, due to the reason or because of a certain situation, a language renews one of the more basic words. The renew occur not because of the loan process but because it grows by itself. The change or share innovation exclusively happens due to their proto- language inheritance and not available in other language subgroups. Concerning this, Jeffers and Leheste (1979) mentioned that the change occurs once in a language's historical journey. The change may appear regularly or sporadically and can be in the forms of lexicons, or can be in the forms of meaning changes (Adhiti, 2016).

In contrast, the qualitative approach uses linguistic evidence, which is dynamic in characters and assumes that language is changeable. It can also be used as the basis for the last subgrouping: branches of several languages from the bigger subgrouping related languages or isolects. Each subgrouping is supposed to have its proto-language. The qualitative linguistic evidence can be in phonological correspondences with shared innovation (Crowely, 1992) and lexical similarity.

Based on the description mentioned above, it can be concluded that: (1) quantitative and qualitative linguistic evidence can be used to determine subgrouping languages or isolects which are being compared. Considering that situation, determining Teta and Sambori as two different languages or two different dialects is not only important to observe and research, but it must be done as soon as possible since the success of determining their status of language classification will help make subgrouping languages spoken in Bima Regency West Nusa Tenggara as a whole.

2.1 Problem Statement The problems of the study include: 1) What is the language classification status of Sambori and Teta isolects? 2) What phonological features unite and differentiate the two isolects? 3) What lexical features unite and differentiate the two isolects?

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

3. Method 3.1 Materials Swadesh word list to determine the isolects status using lexicostatistic. Nothofer word list and Holle word list to collect the data about phonological and lexical features that unite and differentiate the two isolects. A recorder is also used to record the data during the interview

3.1.1 Samples The study subjects were the speakers of Sambori and Teta isolects spoken in Lambitu District, Bima Regency, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Samples of the study were taken using a purposive sampling technique. Three speakers of each isolect were selected as informants, and their selection was based on a set of criteria, as suggested by Sammarin (1981). First, the respondents are the native speakers of the isolects being studied. Second, the age of the respondents is between 25 to 65 years old. Third, they are not speech impaired. Fourth, they love their indigenous culture. Fifth, they live in the village where the isolects are used as the first language and daily conversation and never stay outside that village. Sixth, they are willing to be the informant.

3.1.2 Site This study was conducted in Teta and Sambori Villages, Lambitu District, Bima Regency, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia.

3.1.3 Procedures This study was designed in descriptive qualitative research in which the comparative method suggested by Bloomfield (1981) in Aditi (2016) was applied. The data obtained using Swadesh's word list were firstly analyzed quantitatively using lexicostatistics, and their results were checked using the language classification of Swadesh (1955). The uniting and differentiating linguistic features were qualitatively determined using their phonological and lexical similarities and differences. The object of the study was the basic words between Sambori and Teta Isolect. The primary and secondary data were collected using two different word lists, namely 200 Swadesh and Holle Word List. They were collected using interview and recording techniques.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

3.3 Data Analysis The 200 Swadesh word list was used to determine the quantitative status of the two isolects' language classification. The obtained data were analyzed using the lexicostatistics formula. The number of cognates identified in this study was divided by 200 (minimized by empty gloss (if any), and the result is multiplied by 100 %. The total result was used to determine whether the two isolects were in the position as two different languages or dialects of the same language. In this study, Swadesh’s formula of language classification was used to determine the language classification status. On the other hand, Nothofer and Holle word lists, in addition to the Swadesh word list, were used in determining the uniting and differentiating phonological and lexical features of the two isolects. The quantitative data and the qualitative data were used as evidence to determine the isolect status as language or as two different dialects.

3.3.1 Validity and Reliability To check the validity and reliability of the data, the researchers used a triangulation technique. The researchers used source triangulation. The researchers collected the same data from three different informants for each isolect. The researchers compared the data from the three informants. When the researchers found different data, the researchers took the dominant data as the study's data.

4. Results and Discussion 4.1 The Status of the Sambori and Teta Isolects This study shows that Sambori and Teta Isolects are categorized as two different isolects of the same language. Lexicostatistically, the analysis, which involved 200 words from the Swadesh Word List, showed Sambori and Teta isolect was connected in 196 (98%) cognate words. Four (2%) words from the list were found uncognate). Figure 98% are between 81%-100%. Based on Swadesh's language classification (1955) in Aditi (2016), the two isolects belong to different dialects of the same language. This classification was supported by the results of Budasi's study in 2019, which mentioned that the kinship relation of Sambori Isolect with Bima, Kolo, and Sanggar language spoken in Bima Regency was 38 % on average. This figure is between 36%- 81% percent. So its kinship relationship to all other three languages spoken in Bima Regencies was in a different language of the same family.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

4.2 Uniting and Differentiating Phonological Features To describe their uniting and differentiating phonological features, the two dialects' phonological systems are first described. Respectively vocal, diphthong, consonant, clusters of the two dialects are compared.

Vocal Phonemes between Sambori and Dialek Teta In Sambori dialect, the vowel phonemes; /ʌ/,/ɪ/, /ʊ/,/e/,/ɔ/, and /ə/ occupy all distribution (initial, medial, and final). Respectively, the example can be shown as follows; [ʌsʌ] mouth, [ɪbɪ] incubate, [ʊtʊ mbʌ] under, [elɪ] sound, [ɔɔʊ] roar, [emɔrʌ] they, [kʌrɪ] laugh, [kʌrɪ] laugh, [bʊtʊ] roof, [rerʌ] tongue, [lɔkɔ] stomach, [wəɪ] wife, [kɪlʌ] flash, [wəɪ] wife, [dɔʊ] person, [se] who, [lʌkɔ] dog, [mʌndə] this.

On the other hand, in the Teta dialect, there are only five vowel phonemes which occupy complete distribution, namely; /ʌ/,/ɪ/, /ʊ/,/e/, and /ɔ/. Respectively, the example can be mentioned as follows; [ʌmə] our, [ɪbɪ] incubate, [ʊmʌ] rice field, [emerʌncə] you, [ɔɪ] water, [ngʌntʌ] name, [lɪmʌ] hand, [bʊsɪ] cool, [rerʌ] tongue, [dɔʊ mɔne] she, [kʌngkʌ] spider, [mɔrɪ] life, [ʌpʌrʊ] what, [wɔkɔne] grow, [tɔrɔ] forest. Whereas, vocal phoneme /ə/ only occupies the middle and final distribution. Respectively, the example can be shown as follows; [bənderʌ] flag, and [sɪncə] ring.

Vowel phonemes; / ʌ /, / ɪ /, / ʊ /, / e /, / ɔ /, and / ə /, were found in Sambori and Teta Dialect as the uniting phonological evidences between Sambori and Teta dialect. All of the vowel phonemes in Sambori occupy initial, medial, and final distribution, while in the Teta dialect, the vocal phoneme /ə/ only occupies medial and final distribution. The other vowels occupy complete distribution. So the differentiating linguistic features in terms of phonology were found in the different distribution of phoneme /ə/ in Sambori and Teta dialect. In the Sambori dialect, only diphthong /ʌʊ/ occupies the middle and final position. Respectively, the data can be mentioned as follows; [kʌʊ?ʌ] veins and [kʌʊ] allowed. While other diphthongs, namely; /ʌe/, /ɪʌ/, /ʌɪ/, /eɪ/, /ʊʌ/ only occupied the final position. Therefore, the example can be mentioned as follows; [nʌe] big,[sɪʌ]salt, [mbʌɪ] spoil, [deɪ] taken, and [sʌbʊʌ] one.

The diphthongs /ʌʊ/ in the Teta dialect were found to occupy the middle and final distribution. Respectively, the example can be shown as follows; [dɔʊ ɔrɔ kʌkʌʊkʌɪ] envoy, [kʌʊ?ʌ] veins, [Pʊlʌʊ] ’island’[mbʌʊ] swollen. The other diphthongs /ʌe/, /ɪʌ/,/ʌɪ/,/eɪ/, an/ʊʌ/ was found to occupied in final position. Respectively, the example can be mentioned as follows; [nʌe] big, [rʌe] I, [sɪʌ] salt, [bɪʌ] ‘split, [wekɪndʌɪ] family, [mbʌɪ] spoil, [deɪ] taken, [seɪ] carrying, [wʊʌ] fruit, [sʌbʊʌ] one.

The existence of diphthongs / ʌʊ /, / ʌe /, / ɪʌ /, / ʌɪ /, and / ʊʌ / of Sambori and Teta dialect presented above show the phonological similarities between the two dialects. All of them appear in the final distribution. None of them appear in the initial position. It also shows that only diphthong /ʌʊ/appears in the middle position.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

Consonants of Sambori and Teta Dialect In Sambori language, consonant phonemes /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ were found occupy complete distribution. The examples are [mehe] sputum, [nəgʌrʌ] country, [ŋgɔncʊ] jumping, [bʌmʌ] feed,[kɔndɔ] necklace, [ʌŋɪ] air, [mʌhʊkʊm] punish , [plʌbʊhʌn] port, [jʌntʊŋ] heart. Other consonant phonemes, like; /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /?/, /s/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, /h/ were only occupied the initial and middle position. Respectively, the example can be mentioned as follows; [pʊ?ʊ] tree, [bʊjʌ] javelin, [tendɔ] shallow, [dɪvʌ] bed, [kʌrʌ?ʌ] trece, [snʌ] happiness, [ʧʌrɪtʌ] story, [jʌrɪmpɪ] wall, [lətʌ] wing, [he?e] dig, [Sʌpɔ] cottage, [gʌlɔmbʌ] wave, [bɔtʌ] bald, [kɔdʊɪ] bone, [bʊkʊ] book, [lʌŋsɪ] slim, [sɪn ʧə] ring, [stʊjʊ] agree, [ɪlʊ] hidung, [ŋkʊhʊ ] blunt. While, consonant phoneme /g/ was only found occupied in the initial position. One of the example is [gɪlɪ] grind. Consonant phoneme /y/ was found only in middle position: [bʊʌyʌ] crocodile.

In Teta dialect, only consonant phonemes /m/, /n/, /ŋ/ occupy complete distribution. Respectively, the example as follows: [mɪnʌ] oil, [nʌ?ɪ] meat, [ŋemͻ:] fly, [hʊmʌ] house, [ʌnʌ] children, [lmʌŋɔ] dry, [jʌm] jam, [setʌn] devil, [brʊʌŋ] bear. While other consonant phonemes, such as /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /?/, /s/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, and /h/ occupied initial and middle position. Respectively, the data as follows. [pɔ?ɔ] head, [bɪ?ʌ] split , [tʌhɔ] good, [dɔŋkʌ] road, [kʌrʌwɪ] work, [rʌ?ʌ] blood, [sʌrɔwʌ] pants, [ʧɔlʌ] buy, [jʌrɪmpɪ] wall, [lʌ wɔlɔ] chest, [hɔnggɔ] hair, [ʌpɪ] fire, [tɔbʌ] throw, [ʌte] hati, [sʌdo?o] hear, [rɔkɔ] sharp, [sʌdo?o] hear, [rɔkɔ] sharp, [ndɔ?ɔ] far, [mʌsʌ] gold, [nʧɪhɪ] right, [mʌjʌ] shy, [mbɔlɔ] short. Whereas, consonant phoneme /g/ occupies the initial position as well as the consonant phoneme /y/ occupied middle position. Respectively, the example can be shown as follows; [grʌhʌm] crow and [mʌkʌyʌ] merchant. Consonants /p/, /b/, /f/, /t/ /d/, /h/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, /m /, /n/, /ŋ /,/k/, /g/, /?/, /r/, /s/, /y/, /w/ were found in Sambori and Dialect dialect. Three consonant phonemes / m /, / n /, dan / ŋ / have complete distribution. 14 consonant phonemes occupy complete distribution. That is / b /, ʧ /, / d /, / g /, / h /, / j /, / k /, / l /, / p /, / r /, / s /, / t /, /w/, and /y/. Clusters in Sambori and Teta Dialect In Sambori dialect, the consonant clusters /mp/, /mb/, /nd/, /nt/, and /nʧ / were found to occupy the initial and middle position. Respectively, the example data can be mentioned as follows; [mpʌngʌ] steal, [mbʌɪ] spoil, [ndʌʊ] needle, [ntʌʊ wʌrʌ] rich, [nʧɪhɪ] true. While the consonant clusters /pn/ and /kb/ were found to be occupied only in the initial position. Moreover, the example data can be shown as follows: [pnʌsɪ] bird and [kbʌyʌ] kebaya.

On the other hand, there were five consonant clusters occupy initial and middle position, namely /mp/, /nd/, /nt/, /nʧ/, and /ŋg/. The data can be mentioned as follows: [mpʌ?ʌ ɔʊt] lie down, [ndɔ?ɔ] far, [ntɪri] straight, [nʧɪhɪ] true, and [ŋgɔncʊ] jumping. In contrast, four consonant clusters were found occupied only in the initial position. Respectively, the examples are [mbʌrʌ] under, [klʊki] skin, [pnʌsɪ] bird, and [kbʌyʌ] kebaya. On the other hand, two consonant clusters /nj/ and /ŋk/ occupy the middle position. The examples are [krʌnjʌ] basket and [dɔŋkʌ] road.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

The five cluster in Sambori can be categorized into 2 forms: 2m-blends: / mp /, and / mb /, 3 n- blends: / nd /, / nt /, and / nc /. On the other hand, in Teta dialect, you find 10 Clusters: 2 m- blend: / mp /, / mb /; 4 n-blend: / nd /, / nt /, / nʧ /, nj, and 2 ŋ-blend: /ŋg/ and /ŋk/; 1 k-blend; / kl /, and 1 p-blend: /pn/. So in terms of phonological feature uniting the two dialect, this study found that both dialect possees cluster: / mp /, and / mb /, 3 n-blends: / nd /, / nt /, and / nc /, pn, and kb; while the phonological features differentiating the two dialects, is that, Sambory does not have /nj/, /ŋg/, / kl/; /ŋk/ and, while Teta dialect does.

4.3 Uniting and Differentiating Lexical Features The Lexical Evidences Uniting Sambori and Teta Dialect Sambori and Teta dialects posses similirarities as the uniting lexical feature in lexical forms. Based on Swadesh only, the cognae reached 4 (2%) cognate. But based on the Swadesh and Holle List 965 (77,82%) cognates as leksikal evidences were found as the lexical linguistics features uniting Sambori and Teta dialects. Only 8 of the them, as the example, are presented here: [dɑʊ] >< [dɑʊ] person; [dɑʊ mɒne] >< [dɑʊ mɒne] male; [dɑʊ wɪne] >< [dɑʊ mɒne] female; [la’ɪ] >< [la’ɪ] husban; [weɪ] ><[weɪ] wife; [ʌmʌ] >< [ʌmʌ] father; [ɪnʌ] >< [ɪnʌ] mother; [ʌnʌ] >< [ʌnʌ] child; The Lexical Evidences Differentiating Sambori and Teta Dialect Sambori and Teta dialect posses the differences as the differentiating lexical features. Based on the Swadesh the were 2 % uncognate, Uncognate figures as a whole based of Swadesh and Holle list consists List 275 (22.18%) cognates as lexical evidences which differentiate Sambori and Teta dialect. Only 11 of the whole number were presented as the example below; [re-rᴧ] >< [ǝmǝrᴧnce] you (plural); [mᴧɪ] >< [dʊlᴧ] come; [pᴧlɪŋᴧ] >< [sᴧdɑ’ɑ] listen; [etᴧ] >< [ɪle] see; [ʧʊmpʊ] >< [mpɔɪ] finish; [tᴧhɑ] >< [nʧɪhɪ] enough; [kɑᴧ] >< [kɑdᴧ] lose ; [mbɑrᴧ] >< [ʧʊmpʊ] run aground; [kᴧtᴧdᴧ] >< [heŋɡᴧ] open; [deɪ] >< [ᴧlᴧ] take; [lepas] >< [hori] co’o

This study underlies the analysis of the isolects status by phonetic correspondences. It is because phonetic correspondences are the best way to identify inherited and borrowed words (Starostin, 2010). Lexicostatistic is a technique that uses phonetic correspondences by calculating the proportion of cognates in the standard basic vocabulary of two languages to see the relation of those languages (Zhang & Gong, 2016). Considering the importance of phonetic correspondences in determining language relationships, List, Simon, and Gray (2017) develop software that automatically analyzes the phonetic correspondences. However, quantitative data analysis is not enough, since the qualitative analysis can help the researcher to draw a better tree diagram that describes the relation of the two isolects compared to using the result of quantitative data from the lexicostatistics (Grant, 2010). Thus, besides lexicostatistics, this study analyzed the data qualitatively by identifying the phonetic features and lexical features that unite and differentiate the two isolects. The researchers identified the phonetic features by identifying the distribution of the phonemes. It is because the realization of phoneme changes can be seen from the position that they occur in words (Bowern, 2015).

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

5. Conclusion Based on the discussion mentioned above, this study concludes that: a. Viewed from Swadesh language classification, the kinship relatedness of Sambori and Teta Isolect spoken in Bima West Nusa Tenggara Indonesia are two different dialects of the same language. The two dialects are connected in 98% cognates, and this figure is the range between 81%-100% (dialect relationship within one language). b. The uniting phonological features of the two dialects show that both of them; 1) have the same vowel phonemes: /ʌ/,/ɪ/, /ʊ/, /e/, /ɔ/, /ə/; 2) have the same diphthongs: /ʌʊ/, /ʌe/, /ɪʌ/, /ʌɪ/, /eɪ/, /ʊʌ/; and 3) have the same consonants: /p/, /b/, /f/, /t/ /d/, /h/, /ʧ/, /j/, /l/, /m /, /n/, /ŋ /,/k/, /g/, /?/, /r/, /s/, /y/, /w/; 4) they possess clusters of two m-blends: /mp/, /mb/, and three n-blends: /nd/, /nt/, /nʧ, / and /kb/ /; 5) Sambori dialect does not posses /kl/and /nj/ cluster, while Teta dialect does. c. Based on Swadesh's word list, the lexical uniting features show that the two dialects have 98% cognates, and 2 % of their lexical features are in different forms. The evidence proves that the two isolects were determined as two different dialects of the same language spoken in Bima Regency.

References Adhiti, I. A. (2016). Genetic Classification Of Kabola, Hamap, And Kelon Languages In Alor Island, East Nusa Tenggara. Jurnal Tutur Cakrawala: Kajian Bahasa - Bahasa, 2(1), 49-58. Arafiq, A. (2019). Language of sambori: A morphosyntaxic study. Linguistika, 26(1), 84-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/ling.2019.v26.i01.p10 Arafiq, Hanafi, N., Mu’adz, M. H., & Yusra, K. (2018). The syntactic properties and distributions of personal pronouns insambori language. Kajian Linguistik dan Sastra, 3(1), 1-10. Bowern, C. (2015). Linguistics: Evolution and language change. Current Biology, 25(1), R41- R43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.053 Budasi, I. G., Indriani, M. S., & Sudirman. (2017). Kinship status isolects-isolects in Bima, Sumbawa Island, West Nusa Tenggara: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Singaraja: Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha. Bynon, T. (1979). Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dyen, I. (1975). A Lexicalstatistical Classification of the Melayu-Polinesian Languages. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Fernandez, I. Y. (1996). Flores language kinship historical relations: A comparative historical linguistic study of larantuka ende. Jakarta: Nusa Indah. Grant, A. P. (2010). On using qualitative lexicostatistics to illuminate language history: Some techniques and case studies. Diachronica, 27(2), 277-300. doi: 10.1075/dia.27.2.06gra Jeffers, R. J., & Leheste, I. (1979). Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Keraf, G. (1997). Historical Comparative Linguistics. Jakarta: Pustaka Indonesia.

Journal of Social Science Advanced Research eISSN: 2735-1874 | Vol. 1, No. 2, 76-86, 2020 http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jossar

List, J.-M., S. J., & Gray, R. D. (2017). The potential of automatic word comparison for historical linguistics. Plos One, 12(1), 1-18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170046 Starostin, G. (2010). Preliminary lexicostatistics as a basis for language classification: A new approach. Journal of Language Relationship, 3, 79-116. Yusra, K., Lestari, B., Ahmadi, N., Asyhar, M., & Soemerep, A. (2016). Dialectological position of the language of Sambori. Linguistik Indonesia, 147-161. Zhang, M., & Gong, T. (2016). How many is enough? Statistical principle for lexicostatistics. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01916