Jurnal Budaya FIB UB Lani Phonological Interference in Indonesian Pronunciation Vol. 1 No. 1, Agustus 2020, pp 17-21 https://jurnalbudaya.ub.ac.id Lani Phonological Interference in Indonesian Pronunciation

Onni Tabuni 1, Ika Nurhayani2 and Hamamah3

1 Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Kristen , , 2 Faculty of Cultural Studies, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia 3 Faculty of Cultural Studies, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia

E-mail : [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract Papua is the eastern-most part of Indonesia, comprising the left half of the island of . Lani is a group of people or tribe living in the mountains of Jayawijaya Papua, and they speak Lani language as their local language. The language used for formal purposes in Papua is Indonesian. However, many Lani people cannot speak Indonesian correctly. This study examined the phonological interference of Lani language on the spoken Indonesian of Lani native speakers in Malang. This research used descriptive qualitative with content analysis. The respondents were five native speakers of Lani living in Malang for less than a year. The 200 Swadesh wordlist (1971) was used to collect data of spoken Indonesian from the Lani native speakers to show the phonological interference of Lani on Indonesian. This research revealed two important findings: (1) the pronunciation of Indonesian words spoken by Lani native speakers was interfered with Lani phonological rules, in which the respondents tend to substitute the sounds of Indonesian which do not exist in Lani with Lani’s sounds, (2) the respondents intended to make the pronunciation of a second language (Indonesian) easier. This happened because they experienced difficulties in producing several phonemes of Indonesian not existing in Lani’s phonological system. Keywords: Lani, Indonesian, phonological interference

1. Introduction [ʤaŋan] is pronounced as [jaŋan]. The use of this interfering pronunciation may lead to confusion for Papua is the eastern-most part of Indonesia, the non-Lani audience. comprising the left half of the island of New There are some factors which affect the Guinea (Papua Info, 2019). The formal language occurrence of phonological interference. Fromkin, used in Papua is Indonesian. However, there are et.al. (2003) state that the cause of phonological 264 tribal languages used in Papua. Papua is a part interference is the different phonemes, of Indonesia and therefore Papuan people use phonological rules or syllable structures of the two Indonesian as a unifying language. As a result, languages. Papuans have to speak Indonesian as national The first aspect is the different phonemes language besides their first language. Indonesian is which refers to consonant inventories of Indonesian used all over Papua, starting from the coastal areas, and Lani language. In Indonesian, consonant lowlands, highlands, and isolated areas to the inventory is categorized into voiceless and voiced. Central Highlands of Papua. Not only that, as Meanwhile, Lani consonant inventory has a‘lingua franca’ in Papua, Indonesian is now an prenasalized voice. effective language among various tribes in the region. In fact, its influence has almost led to the Substitution lesser use of local languages in Papua (Howay, J, This is interference that is brought about as a 2012). result of self-substitution for the phonemes of the One of the local languages spoken in Papua is target language to suit their first language structure. Lani language. Lani is one of the major tribes or Galandanci (2000) affirms such occurrence is large groups in Papua. Lani languages are widely because the target language phoneme is absent in used in the mountains of Jayawijaya. Some of the the first language. phonological interference in Indonesian by Lani native speakers that can be observed from daily Elision/ Deletion interaction are the change of sound [f] and [v] into Deletion is a removal of a constituent; in this [p] and sound [ʤ] into [j]. For instance, the word case, the deletion of a speech sound. Moreover, [provinsi] is pronounced [propinsi], and the word deletion may also occur to a phoneme which is not

17 © 2020 Jurnal Budaya FIB UB Jurnal Budaya, Vol. 1 No. 1, Agustus 2020, pp 17-21 Tabuni et al allowed to appear in certain position. In Lani 3. Results language, deletion may occur in consonant cluster. Lani does not permit consonant clusters within the This sub-chapter presents the data from 200 syllable. This results in simplification of consonant Swadesh wordlist of Indonesian spoken by Lani cluster in Lani and the first or second consonants in native speakers in Malang. The data were extracted the cluster has to be deleted to break it. from recorded video of respondents and analyzed It is necessary to investigate the extent to in order to reveal the interference of Lani toward which language interference occurs from Lani to Indonesian. The respondents read out loud all 200 Indonesian. This study investigated Lani words in the list with normal speed reading. The phonological interference on Indonesian as a authors found 64 words of Indonesian were second language. The research focused on Lani’s interfered with the phonology of Lani. The words phonological rules which interfere in the use of are listed in the following table. Indonesian as second language by native speakers of Lani. Table 1. The Findings of Interference of Lani on To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no Indonesian previous study has been done to discuss the interference of Lani’s phonemes on Indonesian. A previous study conducted by Bromley (1961) compared dialects of Dani language in Papua on the basis of phonemic patterns of structurally relevant contrasts. Therefore, this study addressed the interference of Lani’s phonological features on Indonesian as second language by native speakers of Lani.

2. Method The descriptive qualitative approach was employed in this study. There was a large population of Papuans in Malang that could be taken as the participants for this study. In this case, the population of this study was Lani native speakers who were undergraduate students in Malang. The authors selected five Lani native speakers who speak Indonesian to represent other Lani’s native speakers. The sample was chosen because the research did not necessarily suggest random sampling or selection of a large number of participants, as typically found in quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). There were 5 (five) participants used in this study because there were only a small number of Lani native speakers fulfilling the criteria set for this study. The criteria were as follows. First, the place of origin of the participants were from Lani’s remote areas. Second, the participants used Lani in most of the domains in their life and were not exposed to environments which used Indonesian heavily before coming to Malang. Third, the participants were in their first year in Malang universities. The participant’ status as students was required in this study because they had to use Indonesian actively in Malang to study in the universities and to interact with the society. Their ability to speak Indonesian could be used to investigate the interference of Lani language on Indonesian. The data was collected by asking the participants to read the 200 Swadesh wordlist.

18 Jurnal Budaya, Vol. 1 No. 1, Agustus 2020, pp 17-21 Tabuni et al

No Standard Transcription Pronunciation of Phonemes Respondents Indonesian Lani speakers Interfered 1 Air [aɪr] [aɛ] [aɪ] is replaced 4 [aɪ] is not a Lani’s phoneme [aɛ] is not a Lani’s by [aɛ] phoneme 2 Besar [bəsar] [bəsat] [r] is replaced 2 [r] is not a Lani’s phoneme [t] is a Lani’s phoneme by [t] 3 Anjing [anʤiŋ] [anjiŋ] [ʤ] is replaced 5 [ʤ] is not a Lani’s phoneme [j] is not a Lani’s by [j] phoneme 4 Kuning [kuniŋ] [kunin] [ŋ] is replaced 5 [ŋ] is not a Lani’s phoneme [n] is a Lani’s by [n] phoneme 5 Bunga [buŋa] [buŋɡa] [ŋ] is replaced 4 [ŋ] is not a Lani’s phoneme [ŋɡ] is a Lani’s by [ŋɡ] phoneme 6 Daging [dagiŋ] [daŋiŋ] [g] is replaced 4 [g] is not a Lani’s phoneme [ŋ] is not a Lani’s by [ŋ] phoneme 7 Pohon [pohon] [pɔ’ɔn] [h] is 5 [h] is not a Lani’s phoneme pronounced silent 8 Rambut [rambut] [ramput] [b] is replaced 3 [b] is not a Lani’s phoneme [p] is a Lani’s by [p] phoneme 9 Di [di] [ndi] [d] is replaced 2 [d] is not a Lani’s phoneme [nd] is a Lani’s by [nd] phoneme 10 Bulan [bulan] [bulaŋ] [n] is replaced 1 [n] is a Lani’s phoneme [ŋ] is not a Lani’s by [ŋ] phoneme 11 Infrastruktur [infrastruktur] [inprastruktur] [f] is replaced 1 [f] is not a Lani’s phoneme [p] is a Lani’s by [p] phoneme 12 Bergaul [bǝrgaul] [ᵐbǝrgaul] [b] is replaced 1 [b] is not a Lani’s phoneme [ᵐb] is a Lani’s by [ᵐb] phoneme 13 Aktivitas [aktivitas] [aktipitas] [v] is replaced 2 [v] is not a Lani’s phoneme [p] is a Lani’s by [p] phoneme 14 Cukup [ʧukup] [sukup] [ʧ] is replaced 1 [ʧ] is not a Lani’s phoneme [s] is not a Lani’s by [s] phoneme The sound of Indonesian can also be deleted Table 1 presents the orthography of Indonesian by Lani speakers when the sound does not exist in words, their transcription, the pronunciation of Lani’s phonology. For instance, the voiceless these words by the respondents (Lani native glottal fricative [h] exists in Indonesian but it does speakers), and the detail of the phoneme not exist in Lani’s phonology. The word pohon substitution. It can be seen from Table 1 that the [pohon] was pronounced [pɔ’ɔn]. [h] is not a Lani’s pronunciation of some sounds in Indonesian by phoneme. So, when a Lani speaker pronounces [h] Lani speakers was interfered by the phonology of in Indonesian, it becomes silent or unpronounced. Lani. For example, the word jangan [ʤaŋan] was pronounced [jaŋan]. [ʤ] is not a Lani’s phoneme. Therefore, Lani speakers substituted the sound with Phoneme Substitution [j]. [j] is actually not a Lani’s phoneme as well; yet, The findings are discussed in some categories it is easier to pronounce than [ʤ] because [j] is a namely vowel substitution, consonant substitutions, semi-vowel. and phoneme deletion. It can be observed from Table 1 that Lani speakers substituted the sounds of

19 Jurnal Budaya, Vol. 1 No. 1, Agustus 2020, pp 17-21 Tabuni et al

Indonesian with corresponding sounds in their phoneme. The respondents pronounced [n] instead language or sounds resembling to the target sounds of [ŋ] because it is easier to pronounce it using in Indonesian. Lani phoneme. For example, the word bulan [bulan] was pronounced [bulaŋ] by the respondents. a) Vowel Substitution Voiceless labio-dental fricative [f] is not a Lani It can be seen from Table 1 that the 5 (five) phoneme and the respondents replaced it with respondents substituted the vowel [aɪ] with the voiceless labial stop [p] which is a Lani’s phoneme. vowels [aɛ]. The vowel [a] does not exist in Lani’s Therefore, the word aktifitas [aktifitas] was phonology. Therefore, Lani speakers substituted [ɪ] pronounced [aktipitas]. with [ɛ] to make the pronunciation of [a] easier. Voiceless post-alveolar affricate [ʧ] is not a The vowels [a] and [ɛ] are parts of Indonesian Lani phoneme and the respondents substituted it phonology. /a/ is Indonesian phoneme but [ɛ] is an with voiceless post-alveolar fricative [s] which is allophone of /e/ in Indonesian phonology. also not a Lani phoneme. Fricative is easier to pronounce than affricate. Therefore, the b) Consonant Substitution respondents replaced [ʧ] with [s] because it is The Lani native speakers substituted easier to pronounce; e.g. the word cukup [ʧukup] consonants that do not exist in Lani phonology was said as [sukup]. with corresponding consonants in their language or consonants resembling to the target sounds in c) Phoneme Deletion/ Elision Indonesian. Deletion or Elision is defined when a sound is One consonant which is a voiced alveolar trill removed from a word. This sound change happens [r] does not exist in Lani phonology. Therefore, the in the case of Lani native speakers in pronouncing Lani speakers substituted the sound with voiceless the voiceless glottal fricative [h]. This error is alveolar stop [t] which does exist in Lani evident in the participants’ articulation of the word phonology. For instance, the word besar [bǝsar] hitam [hitam] as [itam] or hidup [hidup] as [idup]. was pronounced [bǝsat]. This is caused by the interference of Lani on Voiced alveolar affricate [ʤ] was substituted Indonesian namely the absence of phoneme /h/ in by semi-vowel [j]. Both affricate and semi vowel Lani’s phonology. The respondents removed /h/ at do not exist in Lani phonology. However, Lani the beginning of a syllable for example [hitam] as speakers used semi-vowel [j] because it is easier to [itam]. In addition, the respondents also removed [h] pronounce than [ʤ]. For example, the word in a second syllable of a word, e.g. [pohon] is jantung [ʤantuŋ] was pronounced [jantuŋ]. pronounced as [pɔ’ɔn]. Voiced velar nasal [ŋ] is not a Lani phoneme and the respondents substituted it with voiced Factors contributing to the interference of Lani alveolar nasal [n] which is a Lani phoneme. This on Indonesian can be seen in the word kuning [kuniŋ] which was The phonological interference is caused by two pronounced [kunin]. Voiced velar nasal [ŋ] can also factors, namely the transfer of Lani phonology to be substituted by [ŋɡ] which exists in Lani Indonesian and the intention to make the phonology. The example is the pronunciation of the pronunciation of a second language easier by word bunga [buŋa] which was turned into [buŋɡa]. replacing sounds that are difficult to pronounce Voiced velar plosive [g] can be substituted with sounds that are less difficult to pronounce. For with [ŋ]. Both of the sounds do not exist in Lani example, Lani phonology does not have phoneme phonology. However, the respondents pronounced /h/ so the phoneme is dropped when Lani speakers it as [ŋ] instead of [g] because they found it simpler speak Indonesian. In addition, phoneme to do so. This can be seen in the word daging substitution also happens because Lani speakers [dagiŋ] which was pronounced [daŋiŋ]. transferred Lani phonology to Indonesian. As an Voiced bilabial stop [b] does not exist in example, phoneme [r] is not a Lani’s phoneme and Lani’s phonology and was replaced by voiceless the respondents substituted it with phoneme [t]. bilabial stop [p] which exists in Lani’s phonology. Phoneme [ŋ] is also not a Lani phoneme and the The example is the word rambut [rambut] which respondents substituted it with [n] (Burung, 2007) was pronounced [ramput]. Voiced alveolar stop [d] is not a Lani’s 4. Discussion phoneme, yet voiced gingival prenasalized stops [nd] is a Lani’s phoneme. Therefore, the As stated by Fromkin, et.al. (2003), the users respondents pronounce phoneme [nd] instead of [d] of a second language generally speak with an because [nd] is easier to pronounce for them. An accent because it is possible for them to transfer the example of this is the pronunciation of the word di phonemes, phonological rules or syllable structures [di] which was replaced by [ndi]. of their first language into their second language. Voiced alveolar nasal [n] is a Lani’s phoneme This also happens to Lani speakers who speak and voiced velar nasal [ŋ] is also not a Lani’s Indonesian. They applied the phonology of Lani to

20 Jurnal Budaya, Vol. 1 No. 1, Agustus 2020, pp 17-21 Tabuni et al the phonology of Indonesian. As a result, they results in the difficulties of the respondents to substituted the sounds of Indonesian with those of pronounce the phoneme [h] in Indonesian. Lani. For example, 5. Conclusion [bǝsar]  [bǝsat] [lebar]  [lebat] From the analysis, two conclusions can be [pusar]  [pusat] drawn. First, the pronunciation of Lani native [ular]  [ulat] speakers of Indonesian is interfered with Lani’s [bakar]  [bakat] phonological rules. This is shown by the [bǝsar]  [basat] respondents who substituted the sounds of Indonesian which does not exist in Lani with Phoneme [r] in Indonesian does not exist in Lani’s sounds. The respondents transferred Lani’s Lani phonology and Lani speakers generally phonemes into Indonesian as a result of the replace it with Lani’s sound [t]. Therefore, the influence of their first language on their second respondents pronounced [bǝsar] as [bǝsat]. They language. Second, the respondents intended to also dropped [h] when speaking Indonesian make the pronunciation of a second language easier. because Lani’s phonology does not have [h]. This happens because they found difficulties in Phonemes [b] and [p] are a group of bilabial producing several phonemes of Indonesian which stops sounds in Indonesian phonetics. However, [b] do not exist in Lani’s phonology. does not exist in Lani, so the respondents replaced There are a number of gaps in the findings of [b] with [p]. the current research and can be completed by future For example, research. The future research can be carried out in [rambut]  [ramput] Jayawijaya Papua to get more data from the [lempar]  [lembar] original Lani speakers in using Indonesian. Future [meŋapuŋ]  [meŋgambuŋ] researchers may use new theories, books or [sǝmpit]  [sǝmbit] journals as their references. [kabut]  [kaput]  [tumpul] [tumbul] References Based on the findings of this study, however, Howai, J. (2012). Bahasa Indonesia menembus the phonemes substitution of [b] with [p] were pedalaman Papua (25 September 2012) inconsistent among the respondents of Lani native https://www.kompasiana.com/www.tabloidj speakers. The respondents pronounced rambut ubi.com/bahasa-indonesia-menembus- [rambut] as [ramput] as a substitution of the voiced pedalaman- bilabial stops [b] with voiceless bilabial stops [p]. papua_5517d604a333118107b66028 However, in other words such as lempar [lempar], retrieved 3 March 2018 [p] is replaced with b as in [lǝmbar]. This is an Bromley, H. M. (1961). The phonology of lower exceptional case found during the data collection. grand valley Dani: A comparative structural The respondents also used sounds that do not study of skewed phonemic patterns. The exist in Lani’s phonology but easier to pronounce Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. than the original Indonesian’s sound. The errors Burung, W. (2007). The Phonology of Wano. SIL committed by respondents from 200 Swadesh International. wordlist are [anʤiŋ] becomes [anjiŋ], [ʤahit] Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: becomes [jait], [ʤantuŋ] becomes [jantuŋ], [ʤauh] qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods becomes [jauh], and [hiʤau] becomes [ijau]. This approaches. SAGE Publications. indicated that the respondents picked [j] as a closer Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. M. (2003). sound to replace [ʤ]. They pronounced the words An introduction to language. Boston: [lebar] as [lebat], [leher] as [leet], [pusar] as [pusat], Thomson/Heinle. [ular] as [ulat], [bakar] as [bakat] and [bǝsar] as Galandanci (2000). Influence of Mother Tongue on basat], which indicates the change from the sound the spoken English [r] to [t]. It is obvious that there is a phonological Papua info (2009) from interference from the first language (Lani) to their http://www.worldteampapua.org/papuainfo. second language (Indonesian). html/ retrieved 6 March 2018. The respondents were not able to pronounce Swadesh, M. (1971). Lexicostatistic dating of [h]. This is shown in the words such as [hantam] prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings pronounced as [antam], [hapus] as [apus], [hiduŋ] American Philosophical Society, 96, 452- as [iduŋ], [hitam] as [itam], [huʤan] as [ujan], 463. [hutan] as [utan], [leher] as [le:r], [pohon] as [pɔ:n], [lihat] as [liat], [ʤahit] as [jait], [matahari] as [matari] etc. This is because voiceless glottal fricative does not exist in Lani’s phonology which

21