UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: Kabupaten … of kabupaten Majene (following a course somewhat to...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

o. INTRODUCTION 601. NON-LINGUISTIC INFORMATION 682. SURVEY ITINERARY 763. METHODOLOGY 774. RESULTS 835. RESIDUES - FURTHER RESEARCH 916. CONCLUSION 91BIBLIOGRAPHY 94

TABLES:

1: Government and Population of Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa,Southwestern Section, and Kabupaten Majene 69

2: Reduced Matrix of Lexical Similarity Percentagesand Language Grouping 82

3: Languages of Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa, SouthwesternSection, and Kabupaten Majene with Estimated Numberof Speakers 86

MAPS:

1: Kab. Polewali Mamasa, Southwestern Section, 72and Kab. Majene

2: Languages of Kab. Polewa1i Mamasa, SouthwesternSection, and Kab. Majene 84

MANDAR 59

UNHAS-SIL SOCIOLINGUISTIC SURVEYKABUPATEN POLEWALI HAMASA, SOUTHWESTERN SECTION,

AIm KABUPATEN MAJENEKare J. Stromme

andKari Valkama

UNHAS-SIL South Sulawesi sociolinguistic surveys 1983-1987 (Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures, vol. 5), edited by Timothy Friberg, pages 59-98. [Jayapura]: Percetakan Universitas Cenderawasih, 1987.

o. IIIf'1dJDOCTI"0.1. Previous Work

Several language surveys have previously been undertaken inthe area covered by our survey, i.e. the southwestern section ofkabupaten (district) Polewa1i Mamasa and kabupaten Majene, anddescriptions of the linguistic situation of the area are found ina number of books, theses, articles, and reports writtenthroughout this century. Being important background material forour survey, we will try to summarize the views expressed in themost important of these works with regard to language and dialectdivisions and classifications for this area.

Adriani and Eruijt 1914The first significant description of the area is found in

Adriani and Kruijt's De Bare'e-Sprekende Toradja's ~Midden-Celebes, Derde Deel -r1914). In this work Adriani andKruijt suggest a Mandar group consisting of the languages ofMandar and Mamoedjoe. All the area we surveyed, belongs to theirMandar language area, which they divide up into five differentdialects: Tjenrana (located in present kecamatans (kecamatan =subdistrict) Sendana and Ma1unda), Madjene (located in presentkecamatans Banggae and Pamboang), Ba1angnipa (located in presentkecamatans Tinambung, Tutallu, and Wonomu1yo), Tjampalagian(located in present kecamatan Campalagian), and Binoeang (locatedin present kecamatan Polewali).

As to the extent of these dialects inland, Adriani and Kruijtare not too clear. On their Language Map of Celebes the boundarybetween the Mandar and the Sa'dan language group is drawn as fareast as the Masupu river in kabupaten Tanah Toraja. In the north,Rante Boe1awang and Sa10 Tabang are suggested to be dialects ofthe Mamuju language, but they do not seem to know exactly wherethese places are located.

In a postscript to their book and in later articles by themin Encyc10paedie van Neder1andsch-Indie, they made quite extensiverevisions of these boundaries, however. Here the Sa'dan languageis said to extend as far west as to the present border betweenkabupatens Majene and Polewa1i Mamasa (apparently also includingthe Ulumandak area of kabupaten Majene). In the south theboundary between Sa'dan and Mandar is drawn almost straighteastwards from the southern part of present kecamatan Tutallu.Thus, the whole of the Pitu Ulunna Salu (PUS) area falls withintheir Sa'dan language group.

Apart from a Tjenrana wordlist which they collectedthemselves, Adriani and Kruijt's conclusions are all based onlanguage material of limited reliability collected by Dutch 'civiland military personnel. They obviously did not do extensivetrav~lling in the area themselves. Their conclusions, therefore,must be considered tentative.

60 MANDAR

van der Veen 1929In his article "Nota betreffende de grenzen van de Sa'dansche

taalgroep en het haar anverwante taalgebied" (1929), H. van derVeen also gives a lot of valuable information about Sa'dan'sneighbouring areas, including the area covered by our survey.Whether his descriptions are based on personal surveys in the areaor on secondary information, is not clearly stated, but the manydetails provided and the large extent of agreement with our andprevious UNHAS-SIL field research in the area would seem toindicate that the former is the case.

The most significant difference between van der Veen andAdriani and Kruijt is that the former separates the PUS area fromthe Sa'dan language, thus establishing a PUS language. Theboundaries given for this language, roughly follow those ofAdriani and Kruijt for the Sa'dan language in the west and thesouth (after their revision), but in the east the boundary isdrawn west of the Mamasa river. As his boundary between PUS andMandar are of particular interest to this report, we will try toaccount for this in more detail, using present names foradministrative units and villages.

In the southeast it starts in the northern part of desaMatakali (immediately to the east of desa Palitakan) at theboundary between kecamatans Polewali and Wonomulyo, approximatelyfollowing the southern boundary of desas Palitakan and Rappang tothe west, crossing the Mapilli river to the east of Lena village,and from there continuing straight west approximately to theboundary of kabupaten Majene (following a course somewhat to thenorth of that indicated by Adriani and Kruijt in theirpostscript). Specifically the villages of Labasang, Tapango,Bussu, Landi, Batu, and Dakka of desas Matakali, Tapango, andPalitakan in kecamatan Wonomulyo, as well as kelurahan(administrative unit corresponding to desa but having a higherstatus) Taramanu and desas Ambopadang and Tubbi of kecamatanTutallu are said to belong to the PUS language group.

In the west, van der Veen's boundary between Mandar and PUSapproximately follows the kabupaten boundary and the westernboundary of desa Ulumandak up to the boundary of kabupaten Mamuju.Specifically van der Veen says that the PUS language is spoken inthe mountain areas of what is now called kabupaten Majene andmentions in that connection the Pupenga people (in the interiorof present kecamatan Malunda) and the Oeloemanda and Majambadistricts of Tjenrana. Oeloemanda probably roughly corresponds topresent desa Ulumandak, while Majamba must correspond to theinterior part of one of the other desas of kecamatan Sendana orMalunda. Most of the inhabitants of what is now kecamatanTapalang are also said to speak the PUS language.

As for the Mandar language, van der Veen seems to follow thedialect divisions of Adriani and Kruijt, although he does not

MANDAR 61

Esser 1938S.J. Esser's classification and language map in Atlas van

Tropisch Nederland (1938) basically follow van d~r Veen'ssuggestions for the area concerned, separating PUS from Sa'dan.But Esser does not mention Mamuju as a separate language of alarger Mandar group. For the whole coastal area between Polewaliand Karossa in Mamuju he uses the term "Mandarsche dialecten".

Salzner 1960In R. Salzner's ~rachenatlas des Indopazifischen Raumes

(1960) PUS is again included under Sa'dan, although now as aseparate language of that larger group. Like his predecessorsSalzner suggests a Mandar group consisting of the languages Mandarand Mamuju. The Mandar language he divides up in the fivedialects suggested by Adriani and Kruijt. The Mandar and Sa'dangroups are again classified under the yet larger South Sulawesigroup.

The boundaries on Salzner's map are somewhat different fromthose of the previous researchers, though. The dividing linebetween PUS and Mandar, for instance, Salzner draws more to theinterior than Adriani and Kruijt and van der Veen do, both in thesouth and the west. Tubbi is described as a dialect of PUS but onthe map it is located too far to the south, as a separate enclavewithin the Mandar language. The Balanipa dialect of Mandar islocated along the coast including all of kecamatan Polewali andmost of Wonomulyo, while the Binuang dialect is located to thenorth, between Balanipa and the PUS language, extending far intokecamatans Sumarorong and Wonomulyo. The Majene dialect is shownto include the present kecamatans Pamboang, Banggae, Tinambung,and Tutallu, while the Tjenrana dialect includes kecamatansSendana and Malunda. At least the locations of the Tubbi,Balanipa, and Binuang dialects reveal some lack of geographicalknowledge of the area, but when covering such large areas asSalzner does, some inaccuracies are probably unavoidable.

Pelenkahu 1967In his dissertation "Proto-South Sulawesi and

Proto-Austronesian Phonology" (1975) R.F. Mills refers to dataobtained from R.A. Pelenkahu regarding the Mandar language. Someof this data is probably presented in Pelenkahu's thesis "Gambaran

62 MAN DAR

mention anything about the Campalagian dialect. As did Adrianiand Kruijt, he combines the Mandar and Mamuju languages in aMandar group.

The boundary between the Mandar and Mamuju languages van derVeen seems to draw at the present kabupaten boundary, as doAdriani and Kruijt, although they in one case also seem to includeTapalang with Mandar.

Sepintas Lalu Tentang Dialek-Dialek Mandar" (1967), but as thiswork unfortunately is no longer available to the public, we canonly comment on what Mills cites. The only thing of interest inthis connection is that Pelenkahu is said to talk about a dialectof Mandar called Toda-Todang, which according to his map is spokenin the north, inland from Sendana. Interestingly, in Peta BahasaSulawesi Selatan (~ Petunjuk) (1974), of which Pelenkihu wasone of the editors, Todatodang is mentioned as one of the variantsof the Balanipa dialect. As there is a desa called Todang-Todangwithin the Balanipa dialect area (in the northeastern corner ofkecamatan Tinambung), we assume that this is where this variant isspoken. The location cited by Mills seems to be further north,but that might well be an inaccuracy.

Pelenkahu et ale 1974 Ceds.)The above-mentioned Peta Bahasa Sulawesi Selatan (Buku

Petunjuk) (hereafter: Peta--Bahasa) , like many of the ear~works, suggests a larger Mandar language group. This is thendivided up into the subgroups of ~andar, PUS, Padang-Mamuju, andBotteng-Tappalang. Compared with the previous works, the areacovered by this larger Mandar group, corresponds approximately tothe area covered by van der Veen's Mandar group and his PUSlanguage, and that of Esser's "Mandarsche dialecten" and"pitoe-oeloenna-saloesch". When including PUS in the Mandargroup, the works of most of the previous researchers aredisregarded. We actually have to go all the way back to Adrianiand Kruijt's earlier writings to find anyone drawing the boundaryof the Mandar group as far east as Peta Bahasa. Peta Bahasa'ssubdivisions Botteng-Tappalang and Padang-Mamuju are also new, butthese areas are outside the area covered by our survey.

The Mandar subgroup is said to consist of the dialectsBalanipa, Majene, Pamboang, Sendana, and Awo-Sumakuyu. We notehere that the dialects of Binuang and Campalagian, mentioned byall previous researchers attempting a dialect division of Mandar,are not included. About the former nothing is mentioned at all,while the latter (also called Tallumpanuae) is classified as adialect of the Bugis language. With regard to Binuang we shouldmention, though, that in the report describing the field work onwhich the Peta Bahasa is based, it is actually stated that nodialect by this name was found in the Binuang area, but ratherBugis Pattae. Interestingly, Salzner mentions Tae as an alternatename for the Binuang dialect and Grimes and Grimes in theirprepublication copy of Languages £i South Sulawesi list theseparate language of Pattael (mentioning Binuang in parenthesis)for this area, which they have found not to relate closely eitherto Mandar or Bugis. The Peta Bahasa, therefore, seems to be rightin eliminating the Binuang dialect from Mandar. Nothing is

MANDAR 63

mentioned about Pattae' in the Peta Bahasa itself, however. Onits map this area is assigned to the Sawitto dialect of Bugis.

We also note that two new dialects of Mandar have been added,Pamboang and Awo-Sumakuyu. All that is said about the latter isthat it is located in kecamatan Malunda, while the Pamboangdialect is said to be located on the coast of kabupaten Majene inthe area between its southernmost point (Tanjung Mandar) andSirindu (in the northernmost part of kecamatan Pamboang),consisting of the Luwaor-Bababulo and Pamboang or Adolangvariants.

The Balanipa dialect is said to consist of variants such asLapeo, Pembusuang, Karama, Napo-Tinambung, Tandung, and Todatodang(apparently not an exhaustive listing) and to be located south ofthe PUS subgroup from the lower section of the Mandar river in thewest to near kecamatan Polewali in the east. Balanipa speakersare also said to be found within kecamatan Polewali and theTallumpanuae (Campalagian) speaking area, as well as at UjungLero, just outside the Pare-Pare harbour.

Peta Bahasa's boundary between this dialect and PUS closelyfollows that given by van der Veen east of the Mapilli river,although, as rightly noted on Peta Bahasa's map, Bugis andJavanese LRmigrants have to a . large extent taken over on itssouthern side in that area. West of the Mapilli river Peta Bahasadraws the boundary further north than van der Veen does,apparently including part of desa Ambopadang, and most ofkelurahan Taramanu (up to the village of Taramanu) and desaPao-Pao with the Mandar language.

The Majene dialect is said to be located around the town ofMajene between the Mandar river and Tanjung Mandar, extending alittle inland. It is said to consist of, among others, theBaruga, Tande, Labuang, Saleppa, Pengaliali, and Camba variants,the latter four being spoken within the town of Majene.

All that is said about the Sendana dialect, is that itconsists of several variants not yet identified and that it isspoken in kecamatan Sendana and several places in kecamatanMalunda. As for Peta Bahasa's boundary between this dialect andPUS, it appears from the map that it basically follows thekabupaten boundary up to the point where this turns east. Fromthere it continues straight north, turning westwards at theMalun~a river, reaching the coast at Uluserang (near the kabupatenboundary on the Mamuju side). The interior parts of kecamatanMalunda, including all of desa Ulumandak, are thus included underthe PUS subgroup. Compared with van der Veen, Peta Bahasa drawsthe PUS boundary somewhat further west here.

64 MANDAR

Hilla 1975Apart from some data of his own on the Balanipa and Majene

dialects, R.F. Mills (1975) bases his discussion of Mandar onAdriani and Kruijt (1914), van der Veen (1929), and Pelenkahu(1967). (Peta Bahasa was probably not yet published when Millswrote his thesis.) He therefore does not bring any newinformation regarding the language and dialect configuration ofthe area.

It is clear that Mills follows van der Veen's separation ofthe Mandar and PUS languages. Regarding Mamuju he says that is ~squestionable whether such a language exists at all, tentativelyconcluding that it is basically PUS influenced by Mandar and otherSouth Sulawesi languages. He admits, though, that the languagesituation of the Mandar area is still somewhat unclear, sayingthat lithemost pressing need is a thorough dialect survey, todetermine as far as possible the exact boundaries and isoglosses."

Gru.ea and Gru.es (to appear)Grimes and Grimes (to appear) for the most part base their

analysis of the area on a survey carried out by C.E. Grimes andF.B. Dawson in January 1983. Supported by a lexicostatisticcomparison of wordlists collected on that survey (taking arelatedness of above 80% to indicate one language) they suggestCampalagian, Mandar, Mamuju, PUS, and Pattae' to be separatelanguages, the first belonging to the Bugis Family and the othersto the Northern South Sulawesi Family. Further, the Mandarlanguage is divided up into six dialects: Balanipa, Majene,Pamboang, Sendana, Malunda, and Awo' Sumakuyu, all except the lastbeing supported by a wordlist in their lexicostatistic comparison.Grimes and Grimes do not make it clear, however, what criteriathey have used to distinguish between dialects. Since theirBalanipa and Majene wordlists, relating to each other as high as95% in their comparison, have been taken to represent separatedialects, we conclude that they must also have used criteria otherthan lexical similarity. The only dialect suggested by Grimes andGrimes that has not been mentioned in previous works, is Malunda.

The location of the various languages and dialects of thearea as given by Grimes and Grimes, differs somewhat from that ofprevious works, particularly on their map. Their Campa1agianboundary, for instance, does not include the area of Buku withinthe Campalagian language, contrary to Peta Bahasa. As for theBalanipa dialect of Mandar, 'Grimes and Grim~s extend this furtherto the east than Peta Bahasa does, even beyond the town ofPolewali, although Peta Bahasa admits that there are some Balanipaspeakers in kecamatan Polewali as well. The boundary betweenBalanipa and the PUS language is drawn further north in kecamatanWonomulyo than in both Peta Bahasa and van der Veen, includingdesas Palitakan and Rappang within Balanipa. West of the Mapilli

MANDAR 65

river, though, GrLmes and GrLmes' boundary follows that of PetaBahasa quite closely.

Their location of the Majene and Pamboang dialects is quitesimilar to that of Peta Bahasa, although the boundaries betweenMajene and Pamboang and between Pamboang and Sendana are drawnsomewhat further to the north.

Their location of the Sendana dialect also roughlycorresponds with Peta Bahasa, although Peta Bahasa's boundary withPUS is drawn further east. As GrLmes and GrLmes have suggested aseparate Malunda dialect, this must cover some of Peta Bahasatsand earlier works' Sendana dialect area. Contrary to Peta Bahasa,Grimes and Grimes have located the Awo' Sumakuyu dialect on thepeninsula in the northernmost part of kecamatan Sendana.Ulumandak has been included under PUS, as in many previous works,but with the new dialect name Ulunda. As for the boundary betweenthe Mandar and Mamuju languages, Grimes and Grimes draws thatsomewhat further south than previous researchers, approximately atthe Lambong village in kecamatan Malunda.

Str•••••me 1985The UNHAS-SIL survey of the west central section of kabupaten

Polewali Mamasa carried out b~ T. Laskowske and K.J. Str~e inSeptember-october 1984, also covered some of the fringes of ourpresent area. Some of the findings from that survey as explainedby Str,hnne in his report "UNHAS-SIL Sociolinguistic Survey:kabupaten Polewali Mamasa, West-Central Section" (in this volume),provided us with some helpful background information. Pannei, forinstance, was found to be a separate language. In line withprevious researchers who have included this area under the PUSlanguage, Str~mme included Pannei in a PUS Subfamily along withthe PUS and Aralle-Tabulahan languages. Thus, although the Dakkalanguage was not encountered on that survey, the approxLmatenorthern boundary of the Mandar language in that area as suggestedby many previous researchers, was confirmed.

Th~ village of Kondo in the southernmost end of kecamatanMambi was found to speak a language sepa~ate from both PUS,Pannei, and Mandar. Information obtained there indicated thatthis language at least also included the northern part of desaBu10, desa Tubbi, and possibly also parts of desa Ulumandak.

Str6mme further explained that at Galung in the western partof kelurahan Mambi, it was reported that the closest villages indesa Ulumandak, i.e. Pupenga and Urekang, spoke the same dialect,i.e. the Pattae' dialect of PUS.

Under the section "Present Residues - Further Research" inhis report, Str.mme summarized the situation as follows: "We areunsure where the language boundaries of the language representedby Kondo are, we do not know the precise extent of the Panneilanguage, and we are generally unsure about the linguistic

66 MANDAR

situation in the area between PUS and Mandar (desa Tubbi and thenorthern part of desa Bulo in Polewali Mamasa and desa Ulumandakin Majene). A linguistic investigation of this area is needed toanswer these questions."

0.2. Aim. of Survey and ReportIn the light of all the linguistic research that has

previously been carried out with regard to kabupaten Majene andthe southwestern section of kabupaten Polewali Mamasa, asdescribed above, the basic aim of our survey was to investigate inmore detail the sections of that area where previous researcherswere clearly uncertain and/or have come to conflictingconclusions. This in particular seemed to involve kecamatanTutallu, the northern part of kecamatan Campalagian, desas Bukuand Palitakan in kecamatan Wonomulyo, as well as the northern partof kecamatan Sendana and kecamatan Malunda in kabupaten Majene.In other words we particularly wanted to ascertain the northernboundary of the Mandar language in kabupaten Polewali Mamas4, theexistence and extent of a language between Mandar and PUS (asindicated by Laskowske and Str~ets Kondo wordlist), the statusof Dakka and Buku, the extent of the Sendana dialect to the north,the existence and location of an Awo' Sumakuyu dialect of Mandar,the extent of the Malunda dialect, the status of the Ulumandakarea, and the precise boundary between. the Mandar and Mamujulanguages.

Through the anatysis of the 26 wordlists and 10sociolinguistic questionnaires obtained from the area, as well asof more informally gathered information, most of these questionshave been answered. Recognizing the limitations of our method,lexical comparison of wordlists, we did not see it as the task ofthis survey to establish in greater detail the boundaries betweenthe Balanipa, Majene, Pamboang, and Sendana dialects or toidentify and document the alleged variants of each of thesedialects. That task will require another type of survey and othermethods.

No previous researchers have commented onpatterns in the area. We therefore also sawaim of our survey to obtain information in thatascertain the vitality of the local languages.

The main aim of this report, therefore, is to present, on thebackground of and in comparison with previous research, thefindings of our survey and the following analysis with regard tothe questions mentioned above. But first we will include variousnonlinguistic background information on the area surveyed, some ofwhich will be of some importance to an understanding of thelinguistic situation and some just of general interest to anyonecarrying out further research in the area.

the language useit as an importantarea 1n order to

MANDAR SURVEY page 67

1. HOHLIIIGUISTIC IMFOlIM'ATIOII1.1. Government and Population

Our survey was carried out in two kabupatens, Polewali Mamasaand Majene. In Polewali Mamasa we visited kecamatans Wonomulyo,Campalagian, Tinambung, and Tutallu, while our work in Majene wascarried out in kecamatans Sendana and Malunda. The boundaries ofthe various administrative units are shown on Map 1 and populationfigures in Table 1.

1.2. History, Archaeological discoveries made in the Kalumpang area of

kabupaten Mamuju indicate that there was a civilization in thenorthwestern part of South Sulawesi as early as in the Stone Age.This early population of the area was later mixed with peoplemoving in from the Southeast Asian continent in several waves,resulting in the present ethnological configuration. (Rahman1984:37)

The history of the area is usually dividied into threeperiods. In the first of these, the Tomakaka period, the areaconsisted of a number of small sociological groupings ruled byleaders called Tomakaka (3 one who is made the head). This periodis viewed as rather primitive, with law and order almostnonexistent. (Rahman 1984:45, Kallo 1983:6, Sahur 1976:19-20)

Then followed the Papuangang period, a transitional periodbetween the rather chaotic Tomakaka period and the quite welldeveloped Arajang or kingdom period. The Arajang period beganwith the formation of the Balanipa kingdom about 1500 A.D. Thekings of this period all trace their origin back to the mythicalfigure Tumanurung, who, according to the legends, descended fromheaven somewhere at the headwaters of the Sa'dang river. Sevenkingdoms emerged along the coast of what is now the threekabupatens Polewali Mamasa, Majene, and Mamuju, i.e. Binuang,Balanipa, Majene, Pamboang, Sendana, Tapalang, and Mamuju, as wellas seven kingdoms in the interior area. The second king of theBalanipa kingdom, Tomepayung, in the 16th century suceeded inuniting the seven coastal kingdoms in a federation called PituBabana Binanga (lit.s seven - mouth of - river) of which Balanipawas the leading power. Not long after this the seven interiorkingdoms formed the pitu U1unna Sa1u (lit.- seven - head of -river) federation. These two federations then went together in alarger federation at the so-called Luyo conference. The intentionwas primarily to improve their defence against common enemies,pitu Babana Binanga guarding against enemies attacking from thesea and Pitu Ulunna Sa1u agaist enemies coming overland. Thus,there were both strong cultural and political ties between thesetwo groups. It is not surprising, therfore, that one term came tobe used for the whole area represented by them, i.e. Mandar. The

68 MANDAR

Table 1: Government and Population of Kabupaten Polevali Ma.asa,Southwestern Section, and Iabupaten Majene

Kabupaten Kecamatan Kelurahan Pop. VillagePop. Pop. or Desa represented

by wordlist

Polewali- Wonomulyo Sid6dadi 10529Mamasa Sumberjo 8229

370520 76568 Ugi Baru 5491Mapilli 7840Rumpa 2323Buku 2534 BukuTumpiling 3864Matakali 7082Bumi Ayu 4173Kebunsari 5303Palitakan 4914 DakkaTapango 4088 TapangoRappang 5013Bulo 5125 Pulliwa

BuloKarombang

Campalagian Pappang 4093 Campalagian59618 Bonde 4212

Parappe 2730Panyampa 1892Katumbangan 5733Lampoko 6966Lapeo 6496Suruang 3316Ongko 2955Sumarang 4394Tenggelang 5209Baru 5960Batupanga 5542 Batupanga



by wordlist

Tinambung Pambusuang 839956240 Sabag Subbik 5083

Tammangalle 3615Balanipa 2313Karama 5859Tandung 3468Lekopadis 2024Galung Lombok 2357Tandasura 2898Lembang-Lembang4318Limboro 2699Samasundu 2394Napo 3724 NapoTodang-Todang 2472Tinambung 4617 Tinambung

Tuta1lu Mombi ~83419566 Al1u 4627 Petoosang

Pao-Pao 2449 Pao-PaoTaramanu 2429 Lombang

TaramanuAmbopadang 2180 AmbopadangTubbi 2376 Rattepadang

TubbiPirian

Besoangin 2671 Besoangin

70 MANDAR


by wordlist

Majene Banggae Banggae 15914 Majene123319 52828 Labuang 15956

Totoli 12318Baruga 4914Tande 3726

Pamboang Lalampanua 8360 Pamboang20222 Bonde 6141

Simbang 2541Adolang 3180

Sendana Mosso 921132773 Putta'da 4619

Sendana 5763 PoniangTammero'do 7422 Pelattoang

UegamoOnang 3191 Sumakuyu

ParabayaTubo 2567 Baturoro

Tubo

Malunda Malunda 3671 Malunda17496 Lombong 4102 Aholeang

Kabiraan 2946 KabiraanBambangan 2952U1umandak 3825 Taukong

UrekangPupenga

Sources:

Kabupaten Po1ewali Mamasa Dalam Angka 1983. Kantor StatistikKab.Polmas. Majene Dalam Angka 1983. Kantor StatistikKab. Majene.


Hap 1: Eabapaten Pol_Ii ••••••a, Soathwlntera SeetiOll,and hbupaten lfajene

72

••••__ Xabullaten boundery-.-.-K.c .•••t.nbo.und.ry•••.•••••••Da.a/Keluraha" boundary,-Car road---- root/hor •• trail

~ Ad~lnistrativ. tow~ of KabupatenCJ • • /"iUag. of Kec•• atano • village of O•• a/Kelurahan• Other villega.

,.--..., Rivar~ Distance batw~an vil~ag.s/towns in k••Sanda"a Na.a o~ .dMinistratlv~',unit• ~ Nallla of .dMinistrativa unit and' Village

MANDAR

Mandar area corresponds to present day Polewali Mamas a, Majene,and Mamuju kabupatens. (Rahman 1984:40-41, Sahur 1976:16-17,20-23,Kallo 1983:6-7, Isham 1983:16-19)

Several suggestions have been made as to the meaning of theword Mandar. As this word in several places is used as asynonym for "binanga" (m river), many claim that it means "river"or "waterlt• As one of the main rivers running through the areabears this name, it would not be surprising that it came to beused for the area as well. (Sahur 1976:17)

Many historians, however, claim that Mandar is derived fromthe word Itsipamandaq" , meaning "mutually strengthen", a term usedto describe the intention of the Luyo agreement between the PituBabana Binanga and pitu Ulunna Salu federations. If this is true,the meaning of Mandar would be "strength". (Sahur 1983:17, Rahman1984:40)

In line with the past unity of the Mandar area, when theDutch entered the area in 1905, they formed an administrative unitcalled "Afdeling Manda-ru, which again was divided up into thesubdivisions ("Onderafdeling") Polewali, Mamas a, Majene, andMamuju. The kingdoms were not abolished by the Dutch it wasactually not until 1960 that the last kingdom, Balanipa, was fullydissolved but their sovereignty and power were severelycurtailed. (Rahman 1984:53,60-62, Kallo 1983:8)

After independence a kabupaten Mandar was first establishedin 1952, corresponding to the previous "Afdeling Mandartl• Then,in 1959, this was divided into the three present kabupatens:Polewali Mamasa, Majene, and Mamuju. In 1961 the area of theformer Balanipa kingdom was divided into the Tinambung (includingtoday's Tutallu), Campalagian, and Wonomulyo kecamatans, while theformer Banggae kingdom became kecamatan Banggae. (Kallo 1983:8-9)1.3. Geography

Geographically the area 1S characterized by a coastal plainof varying breadth and a hilly or mountainous interior. ,Inkecamatan Wonomulyo the coastal plain extends all the way up to'desa Tapango and in kecamatan Campalagian to the northern part ofdesa Batupanga. The western part of Campalagian and the easternpart of kecamatan Tinambung is somewhat hilly, however. North ofTinambung, the hills start around the border with Tutallu, gettinglarger and more rugged toward the interior.

Mapilli and Mandar are the two major rivers in this westernsection of kabupaten Polewali Mamas a, the Mapilli having itssource north in the PUS area and the Mandar north in desaUlumandak in Majene.

In Majene the coastal plain is quite narrow, in most placesless than a kilometer, and the hills rise immediately toconsiderable height. Malunda is the only significant river in thekabupaten, also extending into kabupaten Mamuju.


1.4. EcODOmy, LivelihoodFarming and fishing occupy most people of the area, although

trade and small industry are also of some importance in the maincentres. Wet field rice cultivation, a lot of it with artificialirrigation, is dominant in the large coastal plain area ofPolewali Mamasa. Along the coast of Wonomu1yo fish farming inponds also constitutes an important part of the economy. In theother coastal kecamatans of Polewali Mamas a and in all ofkabupaten Majene sea fishing plays a more important role.

In Majene, due to the rather narrow coastal plain, wet fieldrice cultivation is not as dominant as in southern Po1ewa1iMamasa. Although wet field cultivation still accounts for thelargest production, dry field cultivation occupies about the sameland area.

Copra is also an important product in the coastal areas, bothinPolewali Mamasa and Majene.·

In the interior higher area of kabupaten Majene and kecamatanTutallu in Polewali Mamasa, the main agricultural products are dryfield rice, coffee, and cocoa. Trading of coffee, cocoa, rattan,and other wood products constitutes the main source of cash incomein those areas, while the coastal people obtain most of theirincome from trading of rice, fish, and copra.

1.5. ReligionIslam entered the Mandar area in the 16th century. It was

first accepted by the Balanipa king and from there spread quicklyto the other kingdoms along the coast (Rahman 1984:22). Alsotoday Islam is strongly dominant along the coast as well as inmore interior areas such as kecamatan Tutallu and desa Ulumandak.For the area covered by our survey (kabupaten Majene andTinambung, Tutallu, Campalagian, and Wonomulyo kecamatans ofkabupaten Polewali Mamasa) 1983 statistics show 99.7% of the totalpopulation to be adherehts of Islam (Majene Dalam Angka 1983,Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa Dalam Angka 1983). There are a fewchurches in Wonomulyo and one in the town of Majene, but theirmembers are reportedly all immigrants from other areas.

1.6. EducationThe primary school system seems well developed throughout the

area surveyed. Each village visited, even the more remote ones inkecamatan Tutallu, had its own primary school.

74 MANDAR

The coastal plain is basically used for agriculture. Thefirst hills off the coastal plain are rather barren anddeforested, but vegetation increases bit by bit toward theinterior. In desa Tubbi, for instance, there is rather thick rainforest.

As far as secondary schools are concerned, there is at leastone in each kecamatan, usually located at the main centre. Highschools of various types (Sekolah Lanjutan Atas SLTA) arelocated in Majene (7), Somba (1), Tinambung (2), Campalagian (1),and Wonomulyo (2) (Majene Dalam Angka 1983, kabupaten PolewaliMamasa Dalam Angka 1983). The SLTA schools in Polewali also haveseveral students from the area of our survey.

The educational opportunities in the area, therefore, must beconsidered q~ite good.

1.7. Health FacilitiesGeneral hospitals are found in the towns of Polewali and

Majene and several health centres/policlinics in each kecamatan.Where there are roads, mobile health clinics are used as well.

People in the coastal area, where transportation is quiteeasy, must be said to have good access to medical help. In theinterior areas, however, the situation is more difficult. Inkecamatan Tutallu, for instance, the only health centres are foundin Petoosang and Besoangin, which means that it takes up to aday's walk to get medical tratment for many people in that area.With one health centre in the large desa Ulumandak, the situationis not much better there.

1.8. Cam.unicationThe main road along the coast is paved and in good shape

through both kabupatens. Dakka, Batupanga, and Petoosang can alsobe easily reached by car (preferably 4-wheel drive), although thestandard of these back roads is rather poor. From Campalagian itis possible to go about 4 km towards Buku by 4-wheel drive andabout 7 km from Wonomulyo. Buku can easily be reached bymotorcycle, altho~gh driving from Wonomulyo involves crossing theMapilli river by raft.

The path northwards from Petoosang is not good for anythingbut foot and horse. No bridges are to be found at any rivercrossings, so even walking or riding might be difficult in therainy season. Northwards from Batupanga the path is much better.If carried across a few rivers, it might actually be possible toride a motorcycle as -far as Rattekallang in the dry season. Butwalking or riding is probably to be preferred here as well. Inkecamatan Tutallu the villages in desa Ambopadang and Tubbi, aswell as in the northern part of kelurahan Taramanu, are mosteasily reached from Batupanga, the villages in desa Besoangin fromPelattoang in kecamatan Sendana, and the other villages fromPetoosang. All villages in the kecamatan may be reached in oneday or less from one of these three places.

This communication situation is also reflected 1n themarketing patterns: Ambopadang and Tubbi people usually go to the


Mapilli market (via Batupanga), Besoangin people to the Pelattoangmarket, and the others to the Petoosang market.

Reportedly a road from Batupanga to Padangmawalle in thecentre of kelurahan Taramanu will be built in the near future. Itwas also said that when this road is finished, the administrativecentre of the kecamatan will be moved from Petoosang toPadangmawalle. If this happens, the communication patterns shouldchange considerably, and it will mean an improvement incommunications for those living in the central and northern partof kecamatan Tutallu. As for language, it will probably mean aneven greater influence of the Mandar language in these inlandareas.

In kabupaten Majene the interior villages can only be reachedby foot or horse. (Possibly some villages in the interior ofkecamatan Banggae may be reached by motorcycle as well.) Thenorthern part of desa U1umandak can probably also be reached inone day.

Public transportation is readily available along the ma~nroad in both kabupatens both by bus, minibus, and pickup. Thereare also bus services to Ujung Pandang several times daily.Pickups are available from the main road to Petoosang andBatupanga, although horse and cart seem to be more common on thosestretches.

2. SURvEY ITIRBJlAB.YThe survey team, consisting of field linguists Francis.B.

Dawson, Kari Valkama, and Kare Str~mme, left Ujung Pandang onmotorcycles July 7, 1985, headed for Polewali. The next morningwe reported to the Polewali Mamasa Bupati's (kabupaten governmenthead) office (obtaining letters of introduction for the variouskecamatans to be visited), as well as to the kabupaten levelDepdikbud (Department· of Education and Culture) office and theKapo1res (kabupaten chief of police) office. We then drove on toWonomulyo, where we obtained letters of introduction for Palitakanand Buku desas at the Camat's (kecamatan head) office.

Having collected wordlists and sociolinguistic information inthe villages of Dakka and Buku (both accessible by motorcycle), wewent on to Petoosang in kecamatan Tutallu the next day, stoppingat the Campalagian Camat's office on the way to ask for a letterof introduction for desa Batupanga. We checked in with the localpolice and the Camat's office in Petoosang, parked our motorcyclesthere (end of the road), and setoff for the interior of kecamatanTutallu on foot aaccompanied by pack horses and a guide.

During the following five days we covered the kelurahan/desasof Taramanu, Tubbi, Ambopadang, Pao-Pao, and Allu, collectingwordlists and sociolinguistic information in the villages.of76 MANDAR

Lombang, Taramanu, Rattekallang, Tubbi (the Pirian wordlist wasalso obtained here), Ambopadang, Pao-Pao, and Petoosang.

Having finished our work in kecamatan Tutallu, we drove on tothe town of Majene the afternoon of July 14. The next morning wereported to Kapolres Majene, the kabupaten Depdikbud office, andthe Bupati's office, the latter supplying us with letters ofintroduction for kecamatan Sendana and Malunda. We then went onto Somba, the administrative village of kecamatan Sendana, wherewe met with the Camat, obtaining letters of recommendation for thevarious desas. We also reported to the kecamatan Depdikbudoffice, where we got helpful information about the languagesituation in the kecamatan, and to the local police. During thisand the following two days we covered the northern half ofkecamatan Sendana, collecting wordlists in the villages of Poniang(desa Sendana), Pe1attoang (desa Tammero'do) , Sumakuyu andParabaya (deBa Onang), and Baturoro and Tubo (desa Tubo). TheRattepadang (desa Tammero'do) and Besoangin (desa Besoangin,kecamatan Tuta11u) word1ists were also obtained in Pe1attoang andthe Kabiraan word1ist in Parabaya.

On July 17 we continued on to kecamatan Ma1unda, where wealso checked in with the local police and the Camat's office. Thestaff at the Camat's office provided helpful information about the'language situation and gave us the necessary letters ofintroduction. During the rest of this and the following day weobtained wordlists from the villages of Aholeang (desa Lombong,collected at Mekatta), Malunda, Kabiraan/Taukong (desas Kabiraanand Ulumandak, - our informant, which we met in the village ofSulae, claimed to represent both villages and said that the speechform was exactly the same in both), Urekang and Pupenga (desaUlumandak, collected in the village of Malunda).

Having finished our work in kabupaten Majene, we headed backsouth, checking out at the various police offices. A Tinambungwordlist was obtained during a short stop there before going on todesa Batupanga in kecamatan Campa1agian, where we obtained awordlist from the village of Batupanga at Lena. We also managedto get a wordlist from the village of Lenggo (desa Bu10). Havingchecked out with the police in Campalagian, Wonomu1yo,andPo1ewa1i, we returned to Ujung Pandang on July 19.

3. HETIIODOLOGY3.1. Lexical ComparisOD of Wordlists3.1.1. General

To determine tentative language boundaries, we used themethod of lexical comparison of wordlists collected in the area.

Our definition of language implies mutual intelligibility.So, when we speak of two separate languages, we imply lack ofintelligibility. Even though lexicostatistics is not a sufficient


means of predicting intelligibility, we assume that the measure oflexical similarity roughly correlates with the degree ofintelligibility. We feel that lexicostatistics can be used toindicate language relationships, but that any resultantclassification must be considered tentative (Smith 1982). Dyennotes: "The reason that lexicostatistical classification isinconclusive would be the same that affects any elassification;not all the knowable facts are known at the time of classificationunless one chooses to wait hopelessly until all knowable facts areknown. Based on fewer faets than that, a classifieation remainsopen to correction as additional facts become available" (Dyen1966:35).

The additional facts that make the language classificationfinal would be intelligibility testing between all those languagecommunities which show lexical similarity between 60 to 95percent. This is because whereas lexical similarity is oneeomponent of linguistic similarity (together with phonological,grammatical and semantic factors), intelligibility scoresrepresent linguistic similarity directly, being composite measuresof the several factors which determine linguistic similarity.(Simons 1979:15,57,67-87)

3.1.2. Eliciting DataDuring the survey trip (7-19 July 1985) 27 wordlists were

elicited. The earlier Kabiraan wordlist was not used in thecalculations because later during the survey we elicited aTaukong/Kabiraan wordlist, which we considered to be morereliable. So, the number of word1ists used in the calculations is26. We also included seven wordlists from Grimes and Grimes'Languaies of South Sulawesi (to appear), five wordlists fromLaskowske and Str~mme's survey of the west-eentral section ofkabupaten Polewali Mamasa, and two word lists from Friberg andKim's survey of the northern part of kecamatan Mambi in kabupatenPolewali Mamasa. These are marked (G), (L/S), and (F/K),respectively, in our matrix. This makes the total number ofwordlists 40.

The wordlist we used was a 194-item list, which was quitesimilar to both the Grimes and Grimes and the Laskowske andStr~mme lists, but not identical with either. Out of the 194items, 192 were also on the Grimes and Grimes list and 191 were onthe Laskowske and Str~mme list. All these lists are substantiallysimilar to the Swadesh 200 list.

Before eliciting a wordlist, the respondent was screened toensure that he was a native speaker and the offspring of nativespeakers of the language/dialect in question. We permitted otherlocal people to advise and correct the respondent, but we requiredthat the respondent himself pronounce the words, so thatuniformity of pronounciation could be maintained for a given

78 MANDAR

location. Our respondents' age ranged from 23 to 99: 9 werebetween 20 and 30, 7 were between 30 and 40, 9 were between 40 and50, 1 was between 50 and 60 and 2 were over 60. 10 of therespondents were farmers and the rest were government employees orreligious leaders, e.g. teachers, imams, desa heads andsecretaries. Seventeen of our wordlists were elicited in therespective speech community and 9 of them outside of the speechcommunity. The language of elicitation was Indonesian. In twocases though, we had to use interpreters. All our wordlists wereelicited by field linguist Kari Valkama.

3.1.3. Lexical SimilarityAll 40 wordlists were later transferred to a wordbook where

each page contained one item in all its 40 varieties. Where agiven wordlist elicited more than one response, each response wasentered on the wordbook page. After that each word was assignedto its appropriate lexical similarity set according to theprinciples explained in Bugenhagen (1981:12-14). A lexicalsimilarity set is a set of forms which are all lexically similarto one another (Sanders 1977:36).

It is to be noted that here we use the terms lexicallysimilar and lexical similarity set instead of the terms cognateand cognate set, because we want to make it clear that we use thesynchronic method instead of the diachronic method. Bugenhagenrefers to McElhanon (1967:8), according to whom two items arelexically similar if there is correspondence between fifty percentor more of the phonemes, either as a regular correspondence (forthe comparative method) or by phonetic similarity (for theinspection method). (For the discussion of comparative method andinspection method, see Sanders (1977:33-4).) Bugenhagen combinesthe comparative method with the inspection method to the extentthat regular correspondences are taken into consideration.Loanwords, however, he leaves in, which are left out in thecomparative method. So, basically we followed the inspectionmethod, with the addition that also regular correspondences weretaken into consideration. The decisions were made on a lexicallysimilar/lexically different basis according to the 50%correspondence guideline.

3.1.4. Comparisons and DecisionsWe agree with Bugenhagen, when he says that the determination

of lexical similarity on the basis of phonetic similarity is asomewhat subjective task (Bugenhagen 1981:14). Therefore it seemsappropriate to us to give some examples of some of the decisionswe made. To start with the easy decisions: 1/2"pohon", elicitedthe words ponna, poanna, poag, and sappoau, which were allassigned to the same set. Sometimes the chaining of the wordsmade the assignment to a set difficult. For example 41163 "minum",


3.1.5. CorrespondencesWe found several correspondences between phonemes:

#4 h: r:wfJ19, 170, #101 N+homorganic plosive:long plosive, e.g. nt:tt114 d:t:r:r142 s: tl 0

#48 k: t}ISO p:s#20 l:s157 m: 1In8 fS:nd1128 t i s1138, #171 d:dr#25 "':r :r :ho

3.1.6. DisqualificationsOut of the 194-item wordlist, 13 items were disqualified

because of ambiguity, lexical repetition, difficulties in lexicalsimilarity set assignment, confusion, and lack of correspondencebetween the language of elicitation and the language elicited.The items were tHO "sirih", tf24 "mata air", #26 "sungai", 127"danau", 4,35 "awan", 139 "abu" , 159 "hijau", #88 "tidak", IF98"timur" , #99 "barat", #129 "laki-laki", 1130 "perempuan", and 1143"tamu".

Eleven additional items were disqualified from some wordlists(1-3 items from anyone wordlist) because we strongly suspect thatthe wrong item was elicited. So, after the disqualifications, thewordlist contained 181 items, and some individual lists even less.

3.1.7. MatrixA matrix containing the 780 comparisons between the 40

wordlists was then produced with the help of a computer. (Thismatrix is not included here.) Because each lexical similaritypercentage indicates a range rather than a specific value, the

80 MANDAR

elicited the words minum, meiru, meru~, meru, menuQ, menu, minu~,and muitu~. minum and muitu? do not seem to be lexically similarif they stand alone, but with the other words, it is clear thatthey should be assigned to the same set. 1133 "ayah", elicitedthe words ama, ambe, ~mbe~, and kama~. ~mbe? and kama? are evenfarther apart ~n minum and muiru, but ambe is a bridge betweenthe two words, so they were assigned to the-5ame set. 144 "ikan",elicited the words bale and bau, which were assigned to differentsets even though ba rs-Iound in both of the words. These fewexamples show th;t we did not follow the 50% limit mechanically.In the comparisons we compared word roots, not the whole words.So for example the words itunu, mattunu, tunu, mettunu and ditunuwere regarded as identical on the base tu~

ranges of two different lexical similarity percentages mayoverlap. Therefore the next step was to reduce the matrix to itssignificant differences. In this process we followed Gary Simons(1977:75-105). We used the table for 200 words and confidencelevel .10, which is used in average survey situations with goodbilingual respondents, as was the case in this Mandar survey. Inthe reduction percentages between:

52-54 were reduced to 5355-61" " " 5862-68 tI •• " 6569-74 II " tI 7275-80" •• " 7781-85 II •• •• 8386-90" " " 8891-94 II " It 9296-98 II " n 97

There were no percentages below 52 or above 98, neither didpercentage 95 occur. The resultant matrix is shown in Table 2.

3.2. sociolinguistic Questionnaire

In addition to our main method of collecting wordlists forlexical comparison, a sociolinguistic questionnaire in Indonesianwas used in 10 villages to obtain additional information. Thequestionnaire included questions on communications and patterns ofmovement, economy, trade, religious and educational situation,health facilities, social interaction, as well as on language usepatterns and language differences. The questions on languagedifferences, where the informant was asked to group the villagesof the area according to their speech form on a scale fromprecisely the same as his own to totally different, wereparticularly helpful as a guide on where to collect wordlists andon where exactly to draw the language boundaries. The questionson language use patterns gave us important information on thevitality of the local languages. The other information obtainedhas already been incorporated under section 1 above.

Most of our informants for the sociolinguistic questionnairewere natives of the villages concerned and all had extensiveknowledge of the local situation. Most of them were village ordesa leaders or had other prominent positions in the society. Insome cases they were assisted or corrected by other villagerspresent.

Information obtained by direct questioning does not alwayscorrespond to reality. Nevertheless, we have found the result ofour lexicostatistic comparison to largely confirm the reportedlanguage variation, and to the extent that we were able to observelanguage use, those reported patterns were also confirmed.


Table 2: a.e.tucedHatrix of Lexical Siailarity Perceatqeaand LaDgaage OroupiDc-

82

4. RESULTS4.1. Language Boundaries

According to Grimes and Grimes' method of classification,which we will also follow, lexical similarity percentages above80 are considered to indicate one language. Percentages between75 and 80 are considered to indicate the same subfamily oflanguages. Percentages between 60 and 75 are considered toindicate the same family of languages. As already noted, lexicalsimilarity percentages are not sufficient to differentiate betweendialects, so we did not attempt a breakdown of languages intodialects. Based on the figures mentioned above, we arrived at alinguistic configuration of the area as described in Table 2 andMap 2.

Five languages, with boundaries approximately as indicated onMap 2, are spoken in the frea covered by our survey: Dakka,Campalagian, Mandar, Ulumandak, and PUS (represented by ourPup~ga wordlist). The other languages included in our matrix andmap, pan~ei and Aralle-Tabulahan (if this is really a separatelanguage), represent areas covered by Laskowske and Str~mme's1984 survey.

PUS, Aralle-Tabulahan, Ulumandak, and Pannei all relate toeach other at an average of 75-80% and have therefore been groupedinto one subfamily named the PUS Subfamily in accordance withStr6mme's report of the survey mentioned above.

Two language families are represented in our matrix: theNorthern South Sulawesi Family (represented by the PUS Subfamilyand the languages of Dakka and Mandar) and"the Bugis Family(represented by the Campalagian language).

A few comments are needed on the grouping of some of theUlumandak wordlists. Both Tubbi and Kondo relate to both theUlumandak and Pannei lists at an average of above 80%, but as theyshow higher average lexical similarity with the Ulumandak lists,we have chosen to include them with the Ulumandak language.

Despite previous researchers' grouping of Tapalang withMamuju, we have grouped Orobatu (Grimes and Grimes' Tappalanglist) with the Ulumandak language, as its average lexicalsimilarity with the Ulumandak lists is 81.4%. According to Grimesand Grimes' matrix, this list shows an average lexical similarityof 82.2% with the Mamuju lists. Grimes and Grimes have thereforeincluded Tappalang with the Mamuju language. A new and morecomplete matrix of the Mamuju language, however, made by fieldlinguists T. Laskowske and K. Valkama after a recent survey inkabupaten Mamuju, shows Orobatu to relate at only 80.2% with theMamuju lists. Orobatu obviously represents a central link betweenthe two groups, but as the latter matrix is more complete for theMamuju language than that of Grimes and Grimes and as theprinciples applied by Laskowske and Valkama in the assignment of


IIap 2: LaD.aua~'. of Eab1apaten Polt!lnlli "-··at S_thwaateraSectioa , mul EabapateD Kaje:ae

ra••Uy boundarySubraMily boundaryLanguage boundaryPossible· languaga .boundary.Kabupatan boundaryVillaaa/town rapra.entad with wordliat

in lIlatrio<Othar town/villageLanguaga nama"i••d language area with ••any

i•• igrenti .Although w'·~.va choaen to include

n Kab. "a"uJu with tha Ulu••andakdrawing the boundary batwaan thaand tha ~alllujulanguaga i. bayond•••,. •.•h.t u •••••••• u.P ••••••••••. f A ••••••.•••••84

OO>AR

lexical similarity were the same as those applied for this report,we have chosen to group Orobatu with Ulumandak.

As far as language boundaries are concerned, all of theearlier stated aims for this survey have been reached:

The northern boundary of the Mandar language 1n kabupatenPolewali Mamasa has been established, a language in the areabetween Mandar and PUS, Ulumandak, has been found to exist and itsboundaries in kabupaten Polewali Mamasa and Majene approximatelyestablished.

Dakka has been found to be a separate language and Buku to bepart of the Campalagian language.

As to Sendana, the wordlists from this kecamatan do notrelate to each other closer than 88% at an average. It seems morelikely that there are several dialects within this kecamatan. Itis certainly not right to speak of a Sendana dialect extendinginto kecamatan Malunda.

Awo' Sumakuyu has been found not to be a dialect of Mandar,but part of the Ulumandak language.

The Malunda dialect was reported to be spoken only by part ofthe people in the village of Malunda and its immediatesurroundings. Except for a number of Mandar speaking bmnigrantsfrom areas further south who have settled in the villagesllmmediatelynorth of the village of Malunda, kecamatan Malundaconsists of Ulumandak speakers.

We have been able to verify that the Ulumandak languageextends to the border of kabupaten Mamuju, including the coastalvillages of Mekatta and Maliaya. It was also reported to extendacross the border, but how far we were not able to check on thissurvey. Thus, the Mandar and Mamuju languages do not have acommon boundary but are separated by an Ulumandak speaking area.(Table 3 summarizes the languages in Polewali Mamasa and Majeneand gives the estimated number of speakers for each language.)

4.2. Language Use Patterns

Except for Ulumandak, we did not use any formal questioningabout language use in kabupaten Majene. The vitality and dominantposition of the Mandar language in that area seemed all tooobvious to make any such questioning necessary.

For the areas where we did use the questionnaire (desaUlumandak, kecamatan Tutallu, and the villages of Dakka and Buku)the reported situation may be summarized as follows:

Apart from a few exceptions the local language is usedexclusively in the home. Some Indonesian was reported to be usedin the home in the villages of Pao-Pao, Ambopadang, and Dakka, inthe latter case only when children were involved. At severalplaces some Indonesian was reported to be used by school childrenwhen playing.


Estimated NumberLanguage of Speakers

Pannei 9000

Dakka 1500Campalagian 30000Mandar 200000

Ulumandak 18000*pitu Ulunna Salu 300**

The estimates are based on ou~ findings as to the extent of thelanguage, sociolinguistic information obtained, and the populationfigures in table 1.

* Figure does not include U1umandak speakers in kab. Mamuju.** Figure only includes the village of Pupenga in Ulumandak.

Total number of P.U.S. speakers is estimated to be 22000.

86 MANDAR

Table 3: LaDgaagea of Kabapaten Polewali x....a,Southwestern Sec:ti01l, &IUl hbapaten Jlajeae

with Eatu.ated Ru.ber of Speakers

In situations like working together with fellow villagers in therice fields, the local language was reported to be usedexclusively in every village apart from Ambopadang, where someIndonesian was also claimed to be used.

As for the language use at markets, government offices, andhealth centres, the answers were more varied. It seemed to varyboth· with the location of these facilities and with the peopledealt with at these places. With a few exceptions Indonesian andthe Mandar language were claimed to be used throughout. Speakersof Ulumandak and Campalagian (at Buku) also claimed to use thelocal language when these facilities were located within the localarea and when dealing with people of their own group. Dakkastands alone in reporting only Indonesian to be used. This may beexplained by the fact that this is a very mixed language area. Infact only 20% (about 1000 speakers) of the inhabitants of desaPalitakan, where most Dakka speakers live, were reported to speakthe Dakka language, the rest being a mixture of mainly Bugis andMandar speakers.

As for the religious context, a mixture of Arabic,Indonesian, and the local language is used in the mosques. Arabiconly is used for praying. The preaching is most often inIndonesian, but the local languages are also used to some extent.Announcements in the mosques are most often given both inIndonesian and the local language. In Pao-Pao they were actuallyreported to be given in the Mandar language only.

For more culturally related activities such as traditionalfeasts (where these still exist) and ancestral storytelling, therule is that the local language is used. At Ambopadang Indonesianwas also reported to be used for storytelling due to a limitedunderstanding of the local language among children. In theUlumandak-speaking village of Tubbi the Mandar language was alsosaid to be used to some extent at traditional feasts due to someMandar speaking immigrants from the south.

When it came to such an intimate, personal thing asexpressing anger at other people, the answers were unanimous:Only the mother tongue is adequate for that.

We did not have the opportunity to properly check thesereported language use patterns, but at least they did not seem todisagree with our limited and casual observations. Despite afairly widespread knowledge of Indonesian, especially in thecoastal areas, it seems safe to say, at least as a preliminaryconclusion, that overall the languages of Mandar, Campalagian, andUlumandak are vital and have a strongly dominant position in theirrespective areas. Neither are there any signs of change in thatsituation. As the major language of the region, Mandar also seemsto exert some influence in the Campalagian, Ulumandak, and Dakkaspeaking areas, though, as a regional trade language. Throughout.


the area covered by our survey, Mandar vas claimed to be wellunderstood, despite the lack of mutual intelligibility.

As to Dakka, the situation is more unclear. As alreadynoted, there is a strong aixture of ethnic backgrounds andlanguages represented in that area, with the result thatIndonesian more and more seems to be taking over as the languageof ordinary communication. The children of Dakka parents werealready reported to have a limited understanding of the Dakkalanguage, a trend that the parents did not seem too eager tooppose. But a final judgement about the future of this languageshould not be made before a more thorough sociolinguisticinvestigation has been undertaken.

4.3. ca.pariaoa with Prerioua Work

As nothing has been written before on language use patterns,the following comparison only deals with language divisions andboundaries.

Many similarities can be pointed out between the results ofour survey and previous descriptions of the area, as presentedunder section 0.1., but also a number of disagreements.

We agree with all previous researchers that Mandar is aseparate language from PUS. Our boundary between the Mandarlanguage and what we have called the PUS Subfamily is also not toodifferent from that between the Mandar and PUS (or Sa1dan)languages (or subgroups) of previous works. East of the Mapilliriver our Mandar boundary follows very closely that of van derVeen and Peta Bahasa, following a course south of Dakka. Wedisagree with them, however, that Dakka should be grouped withpus. Although Dakka's closest relationship is with the Panneilanguage of the PUS Subfamily (72-77%), we have found its lexicalsimilarity with other members of that subfamily too low to includeit.

At the Mapilli river our Mandar boundary takes a sharper turnnorth than suggested by previous works, approximately followingthe course of the river all the way up to the village ofRattekal1ang, including this and some villages on the east side ofthe river, like Lenggo, within the Mandar language. FromRattekallang it makes a turn to the south, including the villageof Taramanu with the PUS Subfamily, before continuing west to theMajene coast at Poniang. Contrary to van der Veen, then, we havefound all of desa Ambopadang, most of ke1urahan Taramanu(everything south of Taramanu village), and part of desa Tubbi(the village of Ratteka1lang and those south of it) to belong tothe Mandar language. Our boundary here comes closest to that ofPeta Bahasa and Grimes and Grimes, but ours is still somewhatfurther to the north.

88 MANDAR

In the west we have found that the Mandar language does notextend as far inland as suggested by previous researchers. Itgenerally seems to be limited to the narrow coastal plain, whilethe hills above are inhabited by Ulumandak speakers, some of whomhave even moved down to the coast and settled in the villages ofPoniang, Sumakuyu, Tubo, Sulae, and Mekatta.

Our inclusion of the Ulumandak area within the PUS Subfamilycorresponds with previous researchers' grouping of this area. Oursuggestion of an Ulumandak language as separate from the PUSlanguage and comprising a much larger area than desa Ulumandak,confirms Str~mme's anticipations as expressed in his 1985 report,but the exact extent of this language in kabupatens Polewa1iMamasa and Majene has not been established until now.

Similar to Peta Bahasa but contrary to other previous works,we have found the Mandar and Mamuju languages not to have a commonboundary. Peta Bahasa describes Botteng-Tappalang (under whichthe Orobatu wordlist in our matrix belongs) as a separate subgroup(apparently corresponding to our use of the term language) withorigins in the PUS area. This description seems to fit quite wellwith our inclusion of Orobatu with the Ulumandak language and thePUS Subfamily. We also note that our northern boundary of theMandar language is very similar to that of Grimes and Grimes.

Due to a very mixed population in that area, the easternboundary of the Mandar language in kabupaten Po1ewali Mamasa seemsvery difficult to determine. We have drawn it close to the borderbetween kecamatan Wonomulyo and Po1ewali, which seems to be whatis preferred by Peta Bahasa. Possibly it extended further eastbefore the immigration to the area started. Now it might be moreaccurate to draw the boundary west of the immigration area and saythat some Mandar speakers are also found among the immigrants tothe east. The precise extent of the Pattae' language and thesouthern boundary of the Mamasa language is also somewhatuncertain. To get the full understanding of the linguisticsituation in this southeastern section of kabupaten Polewa1iMamasa another survey is needed. Although several previousresearchers have described Pattae' (Binuang) as a dialect ofMandar, we do not find it necessary to do any further checking onthat. Grimes and Grimes' lexical similarity percentages showquite clearly that this is a separate language.

With regard to Campalagian, our survey has confirmed Grimesand Grimes and Peta Bahasa's disqualification of it as a dialectof Mandar. We have also confirmed Peta Bahasa's inclusion of thevillage of Buku with this language. As to the classification ofCampalagian, we have followed Grimes and Grimes in describing itas a separate language in the Bugis Family rather than a dialectof it, as suggested by Peta Bahasa.

As we have mentioned earlier, it was not our intention to doa dialect survey of the Mandar language. Nevertheless, our


findings make a reV1S10n of the earlier statements about thedialect situation of Mandar necessary, as follows.

As seen from our matrix, our Sumakuyu wordlist fits easilyinto the Ulumandak language, and the village of Awo was said tohave the same speech form. We can therefore no longer supportPeta Bahasa and Grimes and Grhnes' suggestion of Awo' Sumakuyu asa separate dialect of Mandar. If it is a separate dialect, it isa dialect of the Ulumandak language. Assuming that it must be thevillages of Awo and Sumakuyu they have in mind when they talkabout the Awo' Sumakuyu dialect,' the locations given by PetaBahasa and Gr~es and Gr~es for this dialect also seem a bit off.The former says it is located in kecamatan Ma1unda and the latteron "the peninsula protruding west above the Sendana area", i.e. inthe desas of Tubo and the northern part of Onang in kecamatanSendana. The village of Awo, however, we have found to be locatedin the northern part of desa Tammero'do and Sumakuyu in thecentral part of desa Onang, both in kecamatan Sendana. (SeeMap 1.) We therefore suspect that neither Grimes and Grimes northe editors of Peta Bahasa knew exactly where these villages werelocated.

With regard to the other dialects of Mandar, it looks as ifwe have at least confirmed Grimes and Grimes' classification ofMalunda as a separate dialect. As the two Ma1unda lists relate tothe other Mandar lists as low as 76-85%, it seems safe to say thisdespite our reluctance to distinguish dialects on the basis oflexicostatistics. Being limited to the village of Malunda and itsimmediate surroundings, the Malunda dialect does not cover an areaas large as indicated on Grimes and Grimes' map, however.

Regarding Sendana we have found, contrary to previous works,that this dialect does not extend beyond kecamatan Sendana to thenorth. If Sendana speakers are also found in kecamatan Malunda,these are probably people who have moved up from the south. Ashas already been mentioned, our findings also raise the questionwhether it is right to speak of only one Sendana dialect as allprevious works do.

Our lexical similarity figures for the wordlists taken in theMandar speaking area of kecamatan Tinambung, Tutallu andCampalagian also raise the question whether it is right to speakof only one dialect, Balanipa, for the whole of that area as allprevious works do. On the other hand one may ask whether Grimesand Grimes are right in suggesting two different dialects,Ba1anipa and Majene, on the basis of two wordlists relating toeach other at 97% according to our matrix. Could it be that whathas previously been called the Balanipa dialect is actuallylocated to the north and/or east of the villages of Napo andTinambung? It is interesting to note here, by the way, that withregard to the wordlist on which the first suggestion of a Ba1anipadialect is based, that of Adriani and Kruijt, Mills concludes that

90 MANDAR

it represents "either a dialect transitional between Mandar andPUS or, more likely, simply a dialect of PUS which happened to bespoken within the (then) administrative unit called Ba1anipa.This would be the northernmost inland part of the area." Millsown Ba1anipa list, though, which originates from the coast, he hasfound to share very similar phonological traits with Adriani andKruijt and Pe1enkahu's Majene data, traits that we find to be evenmore similar when comparing our and Grimes and Grimes' data fromthese places.

S. RESIDUES - PoR'tREk. RESEARCH REEDED

In relation to the stated aUns for this survey, no furtherresidues can be said to exist. That does not mean, however, thatthere are no further residues with 'regard to the linguisticconfiguration of the area surveyed. In fact, our survey has notbrought us much further in meeting what Mills calls "the mostpressing need" with regard to the Mandar language, i.e. "athorough dialect survey to determine as far as possible the exactboundaries and isoglosses."

Our findings in kecamatans Sendana, Tutallu, and northernCampalagian have raised the question whether it is right to speakof only one Sendana and only one Balanipa dialect. It also needsto be demonstrated why Ba1anipa and Majene are separate dialects,if that really is the case.

Our survey has also showed that the need for such a dialectsurvey is not any smaller when it comes to the U1umandak language.Our figures here could well indicate that each word list in ourcomparison represent a separate dialect. Even within the smallarea of the Campalagian language our Buku word list would seem toindicate more than one dialect.

A future dialect survey of the area should not only seek todetermine the boundaries of the major dialects, but also todescribe and locate all the minor variants within each of these,which, according to Peta Bahasa, there are quite a number of. Asmentioned before, a thorough dialect survey will require othermethods than those applied for this survey. Lexicostatistics isjust not sufficient for that task.

6. CORCLUSIOR

Six languages are spoken by the nonLumigrant inhabitants ofthe southwestern section of kabupaten Polewa1i Mamas a andkabupaten Majene: Campalagian, Mandar, Dakka, Pannei, Ulumandak,and pitu U1unna Sa1u (the village of Pupenga only). Of these at


least Campalagian, Mandar, Pannei, and Ulumandak are representedwith more than one dialect.

As far as linguistic descriptions of these languages areconcerned, a fair amount is already available on the Mandarlanguage and a little on Campalagian. (See bibliography.) Also,an UNHAS-SILfield research program has been started in the PUSlanguage. No studies have as yet been undertaken in the Dakka,Pannei, and Ulumandak languages.

According to our analysis of the situation, there seems to bea need for a full UNHAS-SIL field program in at least Campalagian,Pannei, and Ulumandak. Further investigation of sociolinguisticfactors is needed to decide the needs with regard to Dakka. As toMandar, at least the dialect situation requires further research.Whether the available linguistic descriptions of that language andwhether the reading materials available in it are sufficient andadequately cover all dialects, still needs to be determined.

lfOTES

1. Only people from desas Ulumandak and Kabiraan use this name fortheir language. At most other places within this group peoplenamed their language with the name of their village. We havechosen to use Ulumandak as the name for the whole language, as theUlumandak area seems to have a central position bothlinguistically and geographically. Whether this name would beaccepted by the speakers throughout the language group, remains tobe tested.

2. As Aralle shows an average of 82.3% lexical similarity with thePUS wordlists of Saludadeko, Galung and Pupenga, and as Str~mmepreviously has concluded that Aralle-Tabulahan and PUS are twoseparate languages, a few comments are needed concerning thestatus of Aralle-Tabulahan:

1. We threw out 13 words of the 194-item wordlist mainlybecause we suspected that they elicited erroneous responses. Thatraises the percentage counts because suspected items are thosewhich are different from each other.

2. When our lexical similarity percentage counts are comparedwith those of Str~mme's 1985 Polewali Mamasa report, it appearsthat for the lists shared by both (i.e. the Saludadeko, Galung,Aralle, Kondo, Karombang, Pulliwa, Tapango, Napo (Balanipa) andMalunda lists), our figures are 3.7% higher on average.

3. When wordlists are taken from speech communities whereother surveyors have taken wordlists before, the differences aresometimes surprisingly great. Grimes and Grimes' Malundawordlist, for example, is only 92% lexically similar with our

92 MANDAR

Malunda wordlist. Therefore the percentage figures cannot befully trusted.

4. Previous surveyors have come to contradictory conclusionsregarding the Aral1e-Tabulahan group. Grimes and Grimes describeit as a dialect of PUS, while Str~mme classifies it as a separatelanguage. Friberg and Kim do not seem to make any conclusion asto its classification~

5. The focus of our survey was not on Ara1le-Tabu1ahan orPUS, located in the northern part of kabupaten Polewali Mamasa,but on the southern part of this kabupaten and on kabupatenMajene. Therefore we have included only one of the fiveAralle-Tabulahan wordlists available and only three of the 12 PUSwordlists. Our survey therefore does not give the total pictureof the linguistic relationship between PUS and Ara1le-Tabu1ahan.However, as our percentages are on average 3.7% higher than thoseof Str~e's report and as the percentages of that report for theother Aralle-Tabulahan lists in relation to the PUS lists are onaverage not lower than between the lists we have included, we canprobably not expect the picture to have been more in favour of aseparate Ara11e-Tabu1ahan language if all these lists wereincluded in our comparison.

Because of the above facts, since generally speaking themethod of counting lexical similarity itself gives only atentative picture of the language situation, and since there is anUNHAS-SIL team assigned to do in-depth research in the PUSlanguage, we want to leave the question open, whetherAral1e-Tabulahan is a dialect of the PUS language or a language ofits own. Further research, especially intelligibility testing,will give the final answer.


A listing of linguistic, anthropological, and various other worksrelating to the Mandar area (kabupaten Polewali Mamas a, Majene,and Mamuju).

Adriani, N., and A.C. Kruijt. 1914. De Bare'e-sprekendeToradja's van Midden-Celebes. Derde dee1: Taa1- en1etterkundige schets der Bare'e taal en overzicht van hettaalgebied: Celebes - Zuid-Ha1mahera. Batavia:Landsdrukkerij.

A1iah, R.St. n.d. Kerajaan Banggae Majene. Article collection.Majene: Seksi Kebudayaan, Kandep P & K.

Anonymous. 1909. Mededeelingen betreffende eenige Mandharschelandschappen. Bijdragen tot de Taa1-, Land- en Vo1kenkundevan Nederlandsch-Indie 62.649-746.

----. 1981. Laporan perjalanan penelitian dan pemetaanbahasa-bahasa daerah di Sulawesi Selatan. Ba1ai Pene1itianBahasa, Ujung Pandang. MS.

----. 1981/82. Upacara tradisional daerah Sulawesi Selatan.Proyek Invetarisasi dan Dokumentasi Kebudayaan Daerah SulawesiSelatan. Ujung Pandang: Departemen P & K.

----. n.d. Kabupaten Po1ewali Mamasa dalam angka 1983. KantorStatistik, Polewali. MS.

----. n.d. Kecamatan Tinambung da1am angka 1983. MantriStatistik, Tinambung. MS.

----. n.d. Laporan hasil seminar kebudayaan Mandar I tangga1 31Juli s/d 2 Agustus 1984 di Majene. Panitia Seminar KebudayaanMandar I, Ujung Pandang. MS.

----. n.d. Majene dalam angka 1983. Statistik tahunan. KantorStatistik, Majene. MS.

----. n.d. Mamuju dalam angka 1981/82. Statistik tahunan.Kantor Statistik, Mamuju. MS.

Ba'dulu, Abd. Muis. 1980. Interferensi gramatikal Bahasa Mandardalam Bahasa Indonesia murid sekolah dasar di SulawesiSelatan. MS.

----. 1979/80. Morfologi dan sintaksis Bahasa Mandar. Researchreport, Fakultas Keguruan Sastra Seni, IKIP Ujung Pandang.MS.

----. 1985. Sistem morfologi kata kerja Bahasa Mandar. Jakarta:Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen P & K.

Banru, A. Talib. 1976. Todilaling sebagai pembaharu kerajaanBalanipa Mandar. B.A. thesis, Hasanuddin University.

Bataragoa, Vivia. 1975. Tinjauan historis tentang masuk danberkembangnya agama Kristen/Protestan di daerah Mamasa. B.A.thesis, IKIP Ujung Pandang.

94 MANDAR

MANDAR BIBLIOGBAPHY

Buntugayang, Samua1. 1976. Satu pengungkapan historis mengenaiperjuangan Demmatande me1awan imperia1isme Be1anda tahun1914-16 di Pitu U1unna Sa1u, kabupaten Po1ewa1i Mamasa.Thesis, IKIP Ujung Pandang.

Djama1uddin, Husni. 1984. Kesenian Mandar dan masa1ahkreatifitas. MS.

Djubaer, Arfah Adnan. 1974. Tinjauan puisi Mandar (Ka1inda'da)dan sumbangan terhadap puisi Indonesia. Thesis, IKIP UjungPandang.

Esser, S.J. 1938. Ta1en. In Atlas van Tropisch Nederland.Amsterdam: Konink1ijk Neder1andsch AardrijkskundigGenootschap.

Friberg, Timothy. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: KabupatenPo1ewa1i Mamasa, northern section. In this volume.

----, and Barbara A. Friberg. 1984·. A dialect geography ofBugis. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Indonesia Branch.MS.

Graff, S. De, and D.G. Stibbe. 1918 Ceds.) Encyc10paedie vanNeder1andsch-Indie. Tweede dee1.

Grimes, Charles E., and Barbara D. Grimes. 1984. Languages ofSouth Sulawesi. To appear.

Hoorweg. 1911. Nota bevattende eenige gegevens betreffende hetlandschap Mamoedjoe. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taa1-, Land-en Vo1kenkunde (Tijd. van het Bataviaasch Genootschap vanKunsten en Wetenschappen) LIII.57-154.

Isham, Husniah. 1983. Aspek arkeologis makam raja-raja Banggaedi Ondongan kabupaten Majene. Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

Ka110, Abdul Madjid. 1981. Orang Mandar dan eko1oginya. Suatustudi sistim eko1ogis orang Mandar di desa Labuang kabupatenMajene. Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

----. 1981/82. Model-model unit produksi petani ne1ayan Mandardi sebuah desa pantai Mandar. Research project, HasanuddinUniversity. MS.

----. 1982. Tekno1ogi petani/ne1ayan Mandar. Satu studitekno1ogi tradisiona1 di bidang perikanan dan pertanian didesa pantai Labuang, kabupaten Majene. Research project,Hasanuddin University. MS.

----. 1983. Sistem tekno1ogi dan per1engkapan hidup orang Mandardi Sulawesi Se1atan. Hasanuddin University. MS.

Kruijt, A.C. 1942. De bewoners van het stromgebeid van de Karamain Midden-Celebes. Neder1andsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap,2e Serie dee1 LIX, Af1. 4. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Laskowske, Thomas V. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: Seko area.In this volume.

Lopa, H. Baharuddin. 1984. Sirik dalam masyarakat Mandar danpemanfaatnya da1am pembangunan di Sulawesi Se1atan. PusatPene1itian Pembangunan Pedesaan dan Kawasan LembagaPene1itian, Hasanuddin University. MS.


Mangemba, H.D., et a1. 1978/79. Sastra lisan Mandar. Researchreport, Proyek Penelitian Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia danDaerah Sulawesi Selatan, Ujung Pandang. MS.

Mills, R.F. 1975. Proto-South Sulawesi and proto-Austronesianphonology. Doctoral thesis, University of Michigan.

Muthalib, Abdul. 1973. Dialek Tallumpanuae atau Campalagian.Ujung Pandang: Lembaga Bahasa Nasional Cabang III.

----. 1977. Kamus Bahasa Mandar - Indonesia. Jakarta: PusatPembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen P & K.

----. 1985. Perencanaan penyusunan kamus bahasa daerah. Paperpresented at Pertemuan Bahasa dan Sastra Daerah Wilayah Timur,Ujung Pandang, January, 1985. MS.

----. 1984. Kedudukan dan fungsi Bahasa Mandar. ProyekPenelitian Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah SulawesiSelatan, Ujung Pandang. MS.

----. 1984. Sistem perulangan Bahasa Mandar. Jakarta: PusatPembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen P & K.

Pelenkahu, R.A. 1967. Gambaran sepintas la1u tentangdialek-dialek Mandar. B.A. thesis, IKIP Ujung Pandang.

----. 1974 (eds.) Peta bahasa Sulawesi Selatan (Buku petunjuk).Ujung Pandang: Lembaga Bahasa Nasional Cabang III.

----. 1975. Loka karya pembakuan ejaan latin bahasa-bahasadaerah di Sulawesi Selatan (25 sId 27 Augustus 1975 diUjungpandang). Balai Penelitian Bahasa, Ujung Pandang. MS.

----. 1975. Seminar pembakuan ejaan latin bahasa-bahasa daerahdi Sulawesi Se1atan (26 sId 29 Maret 1975 di Ujungpandang).Lembaga Bahasa Nasiona1 Cabang III, Ujung Pandango MS.

----. 1983. Struktur Bahasa Mandar. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaandan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen P & K.

Pua1illin, Dorkas. 19790 Tinjauan historis tentang seni budayadi daerah Kondo Sapata' Mamasa. B.A. thesis, IKIP UjungPandango

Rahman, Sukirman A. 1984. Sejarah daerah Majene. Ba1ai KajianSejarah dan Nilai Tradisiona1, Ujung Pandang. MS.

Roisuddin. 19820 Sistem perkawinan adat Mandar di Pambokborangdesa Toto1i, kecamatan Banggae, kabupaten Majene. Researchreport, Pusat Latihan Pene1itian Ilmu-I1mu Sosiat, HasanuddinUniversity. MS.

Sahur, Ahmad. 1976. Penelitian ni1ai-nilai budaya dalamkesusastraan Mandar. Research report, Faculty of Letters,Hasanuddin University. MS.----0 1979. Perahu Sande sebagai perahu spesipik orang Mandar.Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

----. 1984. Kamus sederhana Bahasa Mandar - Indonesia. UjungPandang: Ikatan Keluarga Wanita Po1emaju Mandar.

----, and Majid Kallo. 1982/83. Masalah bendi di Mandar.Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

96 MANDAR .


Salim, Amri. 1976. Tinjauan historis tentang pertumbuhan danperkembangan agama Islam di daerah Majene. B.A. thesis, IKIPUjung Pandang.

Salzner, Richard. 1960. Sprachenatlas des lndopazifischenRaumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz.

Samar, Abd. Azis, and Arianus Mandadung. 1979. Ungkapan sejarahdan budaya di kabupaten Polewali-Mamasa, Sul-Sel. -Seri: "Alls (Daerah Kondosapatar/Mamasa). MS.

Sangi, M. Zaino 1972. Tinjauan sintaksis dialek Balanipa Mandarmenurut tata bahasa transformasi. Thesis, IKIP Ujung Pandang.

Sikki, Muhammad H. 1985. Kata tugas atributif Bahasa Mandar.Paper presented at Pertemuan Bahasa dan Sastra Daerah WilayahTimur, Ujung Pandang, January, 1985.

----. 1985. Kata tugas Bahasa Mandar. Proyek Penelitian Bahasadan Sastra Indonesia dan Daerah Sulawesi Selatan, UjungPandang • MS •

Str~mme, Kare J. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: KabupatenPolewali Mamasa, west-central section. In this volume.

Syah, M.T. Azis. 1979. Terjemahan Kalinda'da Mandar. Vol. I-II.MS.

----. 1980. Apresiasi sastra Mandar. MS.----. 1983. Dasar-dasar sastra Mandar. MS.----. 1984. Biografi I Calo Ammana I Wewang Topole Dibalitung,.

pahlawan daerah Mandar Sulawesi Selatan.----. 1985. Fungsi sastra daerah Mandar Sulawesi Selatan bagi

masyarakat pemakainya. Paper presented at Pertemuan Bahasadan Sastra Daerah Wilayah Timur, Ujung Pandang, January, 1985.MS.

Tangdilintin, L.T. 1984. Ungkapan tradisional yang ada kaitannyadengan sila-sila dalam Pancasila propinsi Sulawesi Selatan.Jakarta: Departemen P & K.

Tenriadi, A. 1961. Hikajat tanah Mandar. Bahasa dan Budaya9:1.18-33.

----, and G.J. Wolhoff. 1955. Lontara Mandar. Bahasa dan Budaya3:3.7-31, 3:4.25-38.

Veen, H. van der. 1929. Nota betreffende de grenzen van deSa'dansche taalgroep en het aanverwante taalgebied.Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde69.58-97.

Yasil, Surady. 1978. Selayang pandang beberapa tema puisiMandar. Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

----. 1982. Kalindaqdaq Mandar dan beberapa temanya. UjungPandang: Balai Penelitian Bahasa.

Yuseng, Muhammad. 1983. Sumbangan pendidikan Islam terhadapperjuangan mendukung proklamasi 17 Agustus 1945 di Mandar.Thesis, Hasanuddin University.

:.4 .1:~;~,' .s

A listing of other articles referred to in this report.

Arden, G.S. 1977. Guidelines for conducting a lexicostatisticsurvey in Papua New Guinea. In Loving 1977.

Bugenhagen, Robert. 1981. A guide for conducting sociolinguisticsurveys in Papua New Guinea. Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Dyen, Isidore. 1966. Comment. Oceanic Linguistics 5:1.32-49.Loving, Richard. 1977 (ed.) Language variation and survey

techniques. Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages 21.McElhanon, K. 1967. Preliminary observations on Huon Peninsula

languages. Oceanic Linguistics 6.1-45.Simons, Gary F. 1977. Tables of significance for

lexicostatistics. In Loving 1977.----. 1979. Language variation and limits to communication.

Technical report no. 3. Ithaca: Cornell University.Smith, Kenneth D. 1982 (ed.) A compendium of articles relating

to the survey of Sabah languages. Pacific Linguistics.

98 MANDAR

UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: Kabupaten … of kabupaten Majene (following a course somewhat to...

Documents

Transcript of UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: Kabupaten … of kabupaten Majene (following a course somewhat to...