WORKPAPERS IN INDONESIAN

LANGUAGES, AND CULlURES

Volume 5

UNHAS-SIL

SOUTH SULAWESI SOCIOLINGUISTIC SOIYEYS

1983-1987

THE SUMMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS

IN COOPERATION WITH

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE

THE SUMMER INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS

IN COOPERATION WITH

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND~ CULTURE

1987

SOUH SULAWESI SOCIOLINGUIST1C SURVEYS1983-1987

Timothy Friberg, Editorseptember 1987

TABLE 01' CONTENTS

0. FOREWORD

1. RAMPI AREA (Kabupaten Luwu)Thomas V. Laskowske 1

2. PUSl (Kabupaten Polewali-Mamasa, Northern Section)Timothy Friberg 9

3. PUS2 (Kabupaten Polewali-Mamasa, West-Central Section)Kare J. Stromme 17

4. SEKO AREA (Kabupaten Luwu)Thomas V. Laskowske, Kathryn B. Laskowske 41

5. MANDAR (Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa, Southwestern Sectionand Kabupaten Majene)

Kare J. Stromme, Kari Valkama 59

6. MAMUJU (Kabupaten Mamuju)Kari Valkama 99

7. TORAJA (Kabupatens Pinrang, Enrekang, Tana Toraja, Luwuand Eastern part of Polewali Mamasa)

Kari Valkama 119

iii

FOREWORD

In 1982-1983Chuck and Barbara Grimes conducted a survey ofthe languages of South Sulawesi which in its published version (toappear) will certainly stand as the major summary statement of thelanguages of this province. It is a model to follow both in itsliterature review and in its data gathering and analysis.

Their Languages ofSouth Sulawesi, a definitive result of thecooperative agreement between Hasanuddin University and the SummerInstitute of Linguistics, led to a series of further surveys ofthe province between 1983 and 1987, under that same workingagreement, that went both deeper and farther afield than the workthat inspired them. Armed with wordlists and questionnaires,members of the UNHAS-SIL cooperative agreement visited everyadministrative district and subdistrict and multiplied villages ina closer look at the linguistic and sociolinguistic situation ofSouth Sulawesi. Some three hundred wordlists and scores ofsociolinguistic questionnaires have considerably expanded ourknowledge of the languages of the province.

The present volume reports on all but two of those surveys.They are found in chronological order in the following pages. Thetwo not reported on here are the Bugis dialect survey and theMakasar subfamily and southern islands survey. The former issummarized in "A dialect geography of Bugis" (Pacific Linguistics,to appear; the unabridged version is available on microfiche)while the latter will be included in an overview statement of whatwe know now (or still don't) that was not known in Grimes andGrimes, tentatively entitled "Beyond Grimes and Grimes".

The survey reports of this volume are of uneven quality.While some editing has been done, the results presented herereflect a growth in our understanding of the requirements ofsurvey in Sulawesi.

'The language relationships stated in the reports aresynChronic rather than genetic, and sociOlinguistic at that. Weare very interested in diachronic relationships. We expect thatthese reports and more specifically the word1ists they are basedon will go a long way in determining those relationships. Thematerials we have gathered are in general available to anyoneinterested. We welcome individual inquiries even while we seek avehicle for publishing our word1ists.

Based on Grimes and Grimes, these survey reports and theoverview statement to follow, we plan further survey at specificlocations to answer questions regarding mutual intelligibility andbilingualism.

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance in preparing thisvolume that was willingly given by Barbara Friberg, SulawesiProgram academic affairs coordinator, Anna-Leena Saikkonen,computer coordinator, and Susan Yuanta, administrative assistant.

Timothy FribergUjung PandangSeptember 1987

iv

Dalam tahun 1982-1983 Chuck dan Barbara Grimes telahmelakukan suatu survai bahasa-bahasa di daerah SulawesiSelatan yang dalam versinya yang telah diterbitkan tentunyaakan menjadi ringkasan utama bahasa-bahasa yang ada dipropinsi tersebut. Survai in1 merupakan model untukdicontohi baik dalam tinjauan literatur maupun dalampengumpulan data dan analisisnya.

Hasil nyata persetujuan kerjasama antara UNHAS dan SILyang berupa survai bahsa-bahasa daerah Sulawesi Selatan initelah menyebabkan adanya survai-survai lanjutan di propinsiini dilakukan antara tahun 1983 dan 1987, yang mana masih dibawah persetujuan kerjasama UNHAS-SIL, yang berjalan lebihjauh dan mendalam dari pada pekerjaan yang telah merekarencanakan. Dilengkapi dengan daftar-daftar kata dankuesioner, para anggota kerjasama UNHAS-SIL mengunjungidaerah kabupaten dan kecamatan serta beberapa desa untukmelihat dari dekat keadaan linguistik dan sosiolinguistik didaerah Sulawesi Selatan. Kurang lebih 300 daftar kata danangka-angka dari kuesioner sosiolinguistik ini benar-benartelah menambah pengetahuan para peneliti tentangbahasa-bahasa di propinsi ini.

Volume ini menyajikan semua laporan, kecuali dua survaidari survai-survai terakhir. Laporan ini disusun secarakronologis pada halaman-halaman berikut. Kedua survai yangtidak dilaporkan di sini adalah survai dialek bahasa Bugisdan survai subfamili bahasa Makasar serta pUlau-pulau dibagian selatan Sulawesi. Ringkasan survai bahasa Bugis dalam"A Dialect Geography of Bugis" (akan terbit dalam Pacific~Linguistics; versi yang lengkap tersediapada mikrofis),sedanghkan survai subfamili bahasa Makasar akan dimasukkandalam suatu ikhtisar tentang hal-hal yang sudah ataupunbelum diketahui dan juga yang belum ada dalam tulisan Grimesand Grimes yang berjudul "Beyond Grimes and Grimes".

Laporan survai dalam volume ini belum begitu lengkap.Sementara beberapa pemeriksaan sudah dilakukan, hasil yangdikemukakan di sini menggambarkan suatu perkembangan dalampemahaman peneliti tentang syarat-syarat survai di daerahSulawesi.

Hubungan-hubungan bahasa yang disampaikan dalam laporanini lebih berbentuk sinkronis dari pada genetik dansosiolinguistik. Kami sangat tertarik denganhubungan-hubungan diakronis. Kami mengharap agar laporan ini

v

P R A KAT A

dan terlebih yang berdasarkan pada daftar-daftar kata akanmembantu ~alam menentukan hUbungan-hubUngan tersebut.Bahan-bahan yang telah kami kumpulkan tersedia bagi mereka(siapa saja) yang tertarik. Sementara kami meneari saranauntuk menerbitkan daftar-daftar kami, kami menyambutpermintaan perorangan.

Berdasarkan tulisan Grimes and Grimes, laporan-laporansurvai dan ikhtisar ini akan menyusul, kami mereneanakansurvai lanjutan pada daerah-daerah tertentu untuk menjawabpertanyaan-pertanyaan mengenai inteligibilitas dandwibahasa.

Kami mengueap terima kasih atas kerelaan ibu BarbaraFriberg (Koordinator Bidang Akademik Program Sulawesi), nonaAnna-Leena Saikkonen (koordinator Bidang Komputer) dan nonaSusan Yuanta (Asisten Administrator) yang telah membantu~dalam persiapan-persiapan volume ini.

Timothy FribergUjung PandangSeptember 1987

vi

INTRODUCTION

UNHAS-SILSociolinguistic Survey:Rampi Area (Kabupaten Luwu)

Thomas V. Laskowske

The survey team made their visit to Rampi 15-24 November1983. We visited each village presently occupied and tookwordlists. In several villages sociolinguistic information wasalso gathered. We walked the trails from Leboni as far as Tedeboe(see map). We were told that the area from Leboni to Rato is atpresent abandoned and therefore we did not try to visit it.

The team participants were:Francis B. Dawson, M.A. - Survey LeaderDonald Barr, M.A.Eui Jung Kim, M.A.Thomas V. Laskowske, M.S.

Mr. Barr came~ from Palu, Sulawesi Tengah. The other threeparticipants came from Ujung Pandang.

InNEIARY

15 November - Drove from Ujung Pandang to Palopo. Driving time 71/2 hours.

16 " - Met Bupati Drs Tawakkal and obtained letters to thecamats of Masamba and Lembong. Drove 1 hour toMasamba.

17 " - Met with Camat H.M. Djunaid of Masamba and obtainedletters to the kepala desas. Cheeked in with thepolice and visited the P dan K office.

18 " - The MAF plane (with Mr.~ Barr~ aboard) flew us toOnondoa, Rampi. Stayed that day and night inOnondoa. Started gathering information.

19 " - Split into two teams. Mr. Dawson and Mr. Kim (TeamI) went north. Stayed overnight in Bangko. Mr. Barrand Mr. Laskowske (Team II) went south. Stayedovernight in Leboni.

20 " - Team I went to Tedeboe and spent the night. Team IIreturned to Onondoa. They also stopped in Su1aku towitness the installation of the new kepala kampung.

21 " - Teams I and II met in Dodolo to expedite the surveythere.

22 " - Teams stayed in Onondoa evaluating the informationand talking to more people.

23 " - Left Rampi for Masamba via MAF plane. Drove toMakale (3 hours) and overnighted there.

24 " - Returned to Ujung Pandang, 7 1/2 hours driving time.

RAMP I 1

Map of Rampi Area

RAMP I

The kepala desas are not permanent residents of Rampi.However, the kepala desas were in Rampi to welcome the camat'spending visit.

Each village has hansips, village policemen, and in each casethey are young men. Each kepala desa also has a local wakil and/ora tata usaha. All were very helpful.

Geography (see map)

Rampi lies mainly in an upland valley at an altitude of about1000 meters. The five villages of Leboni, Sulaku, Onondoa, Meloi,and Dodolo are near the main river of Koro, which eventuallybecomes the Lariang. This valley is about 15 km long.

The villages of Bangko and Tedeboe are separated from Dodoloand the rest of Rampi by a mountain, whose height is perhaps 400meters above Dodolo. Bangko's elevation is higher than that of theother Rampi villages. Its nearby streams are smaller than therivers near the other villages. Over another, smaller mountainfrom Bangko, Tedeboe is located on a tributary of the Koro river,joining the Koro in Central Sulawesi.

The nearest group outside of Rampi is Bada, one day's walk tothe north of Dodolo in Central Sulawesi.

To get to Rampi from Masamba requires a 3-day walk, 81 km.The soil is sandy clay. There is plenty of sand in the

rivers. The parent material is granite.Many parts of the valley which are not cultivated are open

grassland rather than jungle.

Government

Three desas comprise Rampi.Desa Leboni - Leboni

SulakuDesa Onondoa - Onondoa

MeloiDesa Rampi - Dodolo

BangkoTedeboe

DESCRIPTION OF DAERAH RAMPI

Recent His tory

Kahar Muzakkar's forces controlled the Rampi area during theRebellion. In 1952 and 1953 most of the Rampi people fled toCentral Sulawesi. Subsequently the Rampi people lived outside oftheir homeland for some fourteen years. They are now moving back,

RAMP I 3

beginning in 1966 after the Indonesian army put down theRebellion.

We are told that there were 5,000-7,000 people living inRampi. Now, however, there are under 1,500.Population of Rampi

Village Population* Houses (by our count)

LeboniSulakuOnondoa-HeloiDodoloBangkoTedeboe

100200almost 500160130-180220-250

172960192336

*Information gathered from Masamba police and Rampi villageleaders

There are 10 villages of Rampi people scattered in CentralSulawesi. It was said that some are happier there and have a goodlife. Others wish to return, but are still afraid.

CultureHouses Houses are made from wood and bamboo. Many have sawn

lumber as part of the construction. Most roofs are thatched, butsome have wood shingles or corrugated iron. Every house andgarden has a surrounding fence to keep out the cattle. Houses areon stilts about 1 1/2-2 meters off the ground. A small front roomis used for entertaining. A bedroom is on one side and kitchen inthe back.

Food The main food is rice, which is stored unthreshed.Rice is threshed and pounded for a few days' supply at a time.Their vegetables are mostly greens, although there are also somecorn· and cassava in the gardens. Their gardens are quite small.There is an abundance of meat including water buffalo, beef,chicken, deer, wild pig and some fish.

Clothing Some of the older women still wear the traditionaltwo-layered dresses. One old man we saw still wore the traditionalhead cloth/turban. Otherwise clothing is modern. Men leaving thevillage often take their bush knives with them strapped aroundtheir waists.

Manner People seemed reserved, although they were willing totalk about themselves. Men never greeted women on the street andwomen seemed quite shy. The people in Bangko and Tedeboe were notas sophisticated as those in the other villages.

4 RAMP I

Music We observed at least two bamboo flute bands of schoolchildren. Many youths in Bangko and Tedeboe played ukeleles. InTedeboe they performed traditional dances.

Bcona.y

There is plenty of food, so the Rampi people only importsugar, salt and a few specialties. They sell rice and produce inBada, but only take dried meat ·or coffee to Masamba, because ofthe carrying weight. They also buy soap, cloth, and kerosene inMasamba, but don't buy anything in Bada, because the prices arehigh there.

Traders often come on foot or by horse. Cashcomes from selling cattle. They also claimed tocoffee trees, but we did not see enough evidence toit is an important part of their economy.

We observed a number of sewing machines. Also, quite a fewmen seemed to be skilled in carpentry, sawing boards and makingfurniture. Tools consisted of planes, saws, hammers, and chisels.

Transportation and communication was their biggest felt needfor the economy. There are high hopes for a road to be built fromMasamba.

There are no stores or markets in Rampi due to its isolation.

income largelyhave lots ofaffirm whether

Health

People are well-fed and seem pretty healthy. There is noPus-Kes-Mas ~n Rampi. Although there is a building for one inQnondoa, no one has been assigned there. A~anteri in Sulaku getsmedical supplies twice a year, but they are soon used up, andpeople lack even basic medicines. So, when people do have medicalproblems, they have a very difficult time.

Eye infections, goiter, emphysema, skin disease, dysentary,malaria, and tuberculosis are known to occur in the area.

Education

There are Seko1ah Dasars at Sulaku, Qoondoa, and Dodolo, eachwith 2 teachers. Of the 6 teachers, all but one are from Rampi.Virtually all the children in those villages attend school. A fewboys from Leboni walk more than 1 hour to go to school in Sulaku.Also, about 10 make the 3-hour trip to Dodo10 from Bangko.

Even though Bangko and Tedeboe have school buildings, thereare no paid teachers available. Tedeboe does have a volunteerteacher who holds classes when he can. Those two villages verymuch want their schools to have regular classes.

The Dutch started schools in 1918 and 1923 in Rampi, so thereare many adults who attended Sekolah Dasar and speak Bahasa

RAMP I 5

Indonesia. Yet, the teacher in Dodolo said that a number ofparents are reluctant to buy school supplies for their children orto encourage them to go beyond Sekolah Dasar.

ReligionThe area is basically Christian. There is a Gereja Kristen

Sulawesi Tengah (GKST) church in every village. There is also aPentacostal group in Tedeboe meeting in private housing. The Islampopulation of Rampi centers at Sulaku. Today, half the village ofSulaku is Islam and there are some Muslims living in Onondoa.

Two local pastors expressed a need for written materials toteach their congregations.

Church attendance seemed to vary. Only about 20 attended atLeboni, but more than 100 attended at Tedeboe. Services were heldin Bahasa Indonesia, but afterwards announcements were made inBahasa Rampi.

Language

The people we met, for the most part, spoke to us in BahasaIndonesia. However, they converse with one another in BahasaRampi. There was some evidence in Tedeboe and Bangko that some ofthe older people did not use Bahasa Indonesia. A study should bemade to determine the extent of bilingualism. We project that itwould not be as extensive as it appears on the surface, becausemost of the peopl& we talked with were the better educated leadersin the community. The group as a whole, however, has probablyneeded to become more fluent in Bahasa Indonesia beca~se of theirdisplacement and necessity of communicating with people in otherlanguage groups.

We are told the Rampi people residing outside of the Rampiarea have also learned the local languages where they are living.In spite of this, they have retained their mother tongue.

MUtual IntelligibilityWithin Rampi itself there is some dialect variation, but we

would still consider it one language with mutual intelligibilitythroughout. Comparing three villages showed cognate counts greaterthan 90%.

6 RAMP I

Leboni

96 Dodolo

93 Tedeboe91

% Cognate

Probably because of the mountain barrier between Tedeboe andDodolo, it appears that the dialects of Bangko and Tedeboe divergethe most from the rest of the villages. Some of the differences:

Indonesian Leboni Dodolo Tedeboe

adikduri

[hidio'][ruil

[tua~i][ruil

[hint)[t~m' tohu)

Prestige DialectRampi speakers consider Bangko to be the place of cultural

and linguistic origin, an idea supported by loeal legend.Therefore, it seems wise that the Bangko dialect should have astrong place in any proposed program. The Leboni dialect wasreferred to as less Rampi because the people there speak "fast andstrong".

IntegratiOD into Indonesian SocietyThe people are eager for a road to help their economy and for

schools. So, they seem open to outside help and involvement in thelarger national society. An airstrip was opened inAugust/September, 1983.

COBCLUSIOBThe survey found that the people of Rampi are a single

language group. Wordlists show a cognate word count of over 90%similarity among the seven villages visited. A Bada word count (tothe north) is only 62% cognate (Salombe, Barr and Barr, 1979).Seko to the west is 38% cognate (Grimes and Grimes, to appear).

A single language program should meet the UNHAS-SIL goals forthe area. Visits to the Rampi villages outside of the Rampi area

RAMP I 7

will be necessary to ascertain the extent of the program we shouldundertake.

ReferencesGr~es, Charles and Barbara Grimes. Languages of South Sulawesi,

to appear.

Salombe, C., Don Barr and Sharon Barr, 1979. Languages of CentralSulawesi, Hasanuddin University, Ujung Pandang.

8 ~I

URBAS-SIL Sociolincaiatic Survey:Kabupaten Polewali-Mamasa, Northern Section

Timothy Friberg

The survey was conducted by Eui Jung Kim and T~othy Friberg,December 6-16, 1983. We left Ujung Pandang the morning ofDecember 6 by Daihatsu jeep and spent the night in Polevali. Thebupati's office was contacted to arrange an appointment for thefollowing morning.

December 7. We were warmly received at the bupati's office bya clerk and other staff. After some discussion there, we weretaken to see the bupati. It was a cordial meeting. We were givena map of the kabupaten and letters of introduction to the fiverelevant kecamatans of the nine within kabupaten Po~as. Then wepaid a visit to the Department of Education and Culture localoffice. From that meeting we left to begin the drive up the roadto Mamas a , going only as far as Malabo, where we spent the nightin the home of the camat of kecamatan Mamasa.

December 8. Having left the jeep in Malabo, we headed west byfoot for Mambi with one porter-guide. Distance 28 kilometers,travel time 9 hours. In Mambi we met and stayed with the camatfor the night.

December 9. We spent the day in Mambi, getting our presencesquared away with the police, visiting various local people andthe one foreigner in town, Ken George, and generally getting afeel for the area. Again we spent the night with the camat.

December 10. We left Mambi for Aralle with one porter-guide.Distance 11 kilometers, travel time 4 hours. We got a wordlistand filled out a questionnaire. We spent the night with thekepala desa. We discussed a problem with him of our itinerary nottaking us to the next kepala desa's location (desa Bumal) beforewe had already spent several nights in his area of jurisdiction.The kepala desa of Aralle relieved us by telling us that ourintended path would take us the next day <Sunday) right throughthe village where the kepala desa of Bumal always went for Sundayworship.

December 11. We left Aralle for Saludadeko with the sameporter-guide as the day before and a hansip to accompany us as faras the desa boundary. Travel time was about six hours, fortyminutes, less some two hours off enroute, distance 16 kilometers.Enroute we stopped at the church in Kalaha to meet the kepaladesa. He did not come that day, so we gave our letter ofintroduction to his brother. Arriving at Saludadeko, we stayedwith the kepala kampung for the night. We got a wordlist andfilled out a questionnaire.

December 12. We left Saludadeko for Tampalopo in the companyof our host of the previous night. Enroute we asked him and bisparty, on their way to the coast, to push on ahead without us.

PUSI 9

The porter went ahead too. We arrived in Tampa1opo after S1Xhours, forty minutes on the trail; distance twelve kilometers. Westayed at the house of the guru iemaat. In addition to wordlistand questionaire, we participated in the first of three funeralservices for a small boy who died just previous to our arrival inthe village.

December 13. We left Tampalopo for Tabulahan. Travel timewas six hours, distance twelve kilometers. Enroute at Perianganwe took a wordlist and filled out a questionnaire for the Makkilanguage (Kalumpang). In Tabulahan we stayed the night with thekepala kampung, the kepala desa being away. We took a word listand filled out a questionnaire in Tabu1ahan.

December 14. We left Tabu1ahan for Sodangan with oneporter-guide, stopping to rest at Taora enroute. We stayed the

'night in Sodangan with a husband-wife teaching team. We did nottake a wordlist or questionnaire, but asked many questions.Distance 21 kilometers, time nine hours, forty minutes.

December 15. We left Sodangan for Tapalina with aporter-guide. Enroute we changed plans and pushed straightthrough to Mambi. Travel distance, 22 kilometers, nine hourstravel time. In Mambi we stayed with the camat again, spoke againwith Ken George and secured horses for the next day.

December 16. We left Mambi for Malabo by horseback in thecompany of the kepala of desa Bumal and the horae owners. InMalabo we made contact again with the camat's family and thendrove down the mountain to Polewali. In Polewali we had lightrefreshments, and drove on to Ujung Pandang, arriving at midnight.

Trail conditions in our great circuit were poor to good. Wewere rained on three times of no more than thirty minutes total.In a number of places the trail was pure mud, caused by the rainyseason, but maintained by the heavy jungle overgrowth. Rockinessof the trails was in many places more grievous than the mud.

Survey objectives and resultsOne of the survey objectives was to ascertain whether the

dialect situation for the PUS language area was the same as theGrimeses wrote about in their Languages of South Sulawesi (toappear). Specifically, whether the two dialects for which theyhad no wordlists were indeed within the PUS language or whetherthey existed at all. In particular, we sought information ab~utdialects named by the Grimeses as Ulunda and Tapango. In thelatter case we were not able to confirm its existence directly,for our survey stopped short of its goal of surveying the entirePUS area; that is, we did not visit the southern reaches of thelanguage area. However, we were told by several people thatTapango is indeed a dialect of PUS. Its linguistic relationshipto the rest of the language is yet to be determined. In the

10 PUSl

former case, our numerous inquiries as to the location and sta~usof U1unda were all without affirmative response. Summarizing theanswers of many, U1unda is thought to be either U1u Mandar or U1uMa1unda (U1u[ma1u]nda), a dialect of Mandar. Those with knowledgeof the villages west of Mambi town said that the few near oneswere all the same dialect as that spoken in Mambi. Farther westthere is open jungle before the coastal Mandar dialects arereached.

Ignoring Tapango and discounting Ulunda, we find thelinguistic relationship within PUS to be close to the following:

(Buma1)

Ara11e

Aralle and Tabu1ahan, though separated by intrusive Bambang, areclose dialects (89%) and form one related set. Bambang and itsextension into desa Buma1 are popularly considered to be anotherunified set, though we got no word1ist from desa Bambang.(Sa1udadeko and Tampa1opo, both in desa Buma1, relate at 94%).Rantebu1ahan and Meha1a'an, though we didn't test them, appear tobe another related set, both in the people's perceptions andperhaps due to their sharing adjacent tracts of land. Mambi seemsto be without its own clear identify as a dialect of PUS. Thisperhaps stems from its being adjacent to all three of the othersets, Ara1le(-Tabu1ahan), Bambang and Rantebu1ahan-Meha1a'an. Theclosest relationship, if one is to be strongest, is probably Mambiwith Bambang. Further, Mambi is the center of the kecamatan inperhaps every sense but linguistic and the Christianity aspect ofreligion (it is the Muslim center). As such there is a mix ofp~op1e in its population from allover the PUS area as well asfrom without. Word1ists taken from Mambi would have to ensure

PUSl 11

Bambang

Tabu1ahan

Rantebu1ah.!!r

Mehala'an

I

(Mambi)'I

that not only were the informants born in desa Mambi, but alsotheir parents.

As shown on the following matrix, the cognate percentagebetweeen Ara11e-Tabu1ahan and Bambang (Saludadeko and Tampalopo)is low enough (74%) to cause serious doubt as to whether they canbe considered dialects of a single language. The view that wetentatively suggest, as propounded by field scholar Ken George, isthat perhaps the dialects or languages traditionally grouped asPUS were already distinct languages that because of outsidepressures grouped together in a defensive arrangement as a policyof convenience and survival. This alliance later came to beviewed as a cultural and linguistic entity. This theory needs tobe examined in light of extensive linguistic and cultural researchin the area.

Periangan-74 Tampalopo

72 94 Saludadeko

66 73 74 Aralle

64 74 74 89 Tabulahan

The Makki dialect (kampung Periangan) noted in the matrix is amember of the Kalumpang language to the north and northeast ofPUS. Some thirteen villages of Makki speakers have moved into thenorthern reaches of PUS in the last couple generations.

Locally produced booksIn our survey travels we came across two books of interest to

an understanding of PUS. The first is Mamasa a historical,cultural and tourist commentary on the Polewali-Mamasa districtwritten by Arianus Mandadung. The second is Ungkapan SejaTah ~Budaxaan di kabupaten Polewali Mamasa Sulsel by Abdul Azis Samarand Arianus Mandadung. Note that both books share·one author.

IleligioDPUS is generally divided between adherents of Islam and

Christianity with some few thousands following traditionalanimism, called Maplondo locally. Desas Mambi and Aralle arepredominantly Islam. Bumal, Tabulahan and Bambang are Christian.

12 PUSl

The churches are of GTM CGereja Toraja Mamasa) affiliation andthey look eastward to Mamasa for direction.

EducationMost villages have their own primary school, though in the

more remote villages there are no schools or only schools sharedamong several villages. There is an SMP in Mambi as well as aprivate SMP in Aralle. Those finishing SMP have to leave thekecamatan for SMA schooling. We were told at various times thatthese students attended schools in Mamuju, Mamas a and UjungPandang. There are Muslim schools in many Muslim towns. There isgeneral interest in education, but we made no systematic effort tolook at it closely.

Economy

Most villages if not all villages, then desas - areindependent in the basics of food and housing. The family unitowns or farms either sawah or ladang for rice and other foodneeds. We noticed that fresh vegetables were scarce, thoughcassava leaves were in abundance. Some corn was evident. Fish,especially dried fish, seemed to be the basic meat product. Veryfew domestic an~als, apart from some chickens (and dogs), were inevidence. The people eat what they raise. Only coffee is widelysold as a cash crop. In exchange for coffee, people buy clothing,some food supplements and basic tools.

There is a revolving market operating in six locations.Sunday there is no market. Traveling merchants buy and sell atthe markets on this weekly cycle. Pack horses carry their wares.

Geography

The area of kecamatan Mambi is basically mountainous. Anumber of rivers drain the area, either generally flowing south orwest to the sea. Indeed pitu U1unna Salu means 'seven riverheads'. These rivers are too shallow, rocky and fast flowing tobe used for transportation within the PUS area. Although manyhectares of forest have been felled for ladang and developed intosawah through the generations, there are still vast tracks ofvirgin forest. The land is rugged enough to make level areas forairstrips a rare commodity. Trails between villages generallyfollow the lay of the land, so travel distances are a great deallonger than air distances.

PUSl 13

Health aad lledicine

The people often complained of poor health and theirremoteness from healthcare service. 'Poor health' probably meansoccasional sickness, for we saw no signs of endemic sickness norheard complaints of malaria. There is a clinic in Mambi and asmaller one in Aralle. North of Aralle there is nothingavailable.

Bilingualism

In every village we visited we found speakers of Indonesian,regardless of how remote we were. But in all cases we weretalking to village leaders, so we don't know the Qepth nor breadthof bilingualism within village life.

Transportation and communication

The regular Indonesian governmental hierarchy is known andappreciated right down to the village level. Kepala desasfrequently travel to Mambi for government meetings. Villagerstravel at least as far as the desa capital for marketing. Wefrequently noted that men also travel outside the area. Suchtravel approximates river flow: in the northern parts of PUSmovement of goods and people is westward to Mamuju; farther southit is toward Polewali either rather more directly or throughMalabo.

The road from Malabo to Mambi was once open to vehiculartraffic, perhaps only four-wheel drive. It is now passable tosome nine kilometers from Malabo. Continuing on toward Mambi,there is usually a two-track trail, but at various spots, perhapstotalling 10% of the way, it is currently impassable to cars.There was evidence of recent bulldozer work on the road. We weretold that there is a more direct road from the south coast toMambi currently under construction. Coming in from the west,there-is a road from Kaluku on the coast to Kean. Merpati fliesout of Kaluku twice a week. This area is under development, wewere told, in order to service interior Kalumpang. If that is thecase, it seems unlikely that there will be any development on thePUS side of Kean soon.

Movement within the PUS area 1S either by foot or by packhorse.

Bousing, research possibilities

In a number of cases it was clearly stated to us that alonger tera stay by resident linguists would be welcome. In somevillages such a stay would require building a house for a family

14 PUS1

com~ng in from outside the PUS area. In other villages we weretold a house could be rented.

Allocation factorsThe single largest allocation factor 1S the question of

dialects. We are happy, on the one hand, that the seven dialectsof the Grimeses' report have been reduced to potentially three,howbeit subject to much more testing: Aralle-Tabulahan, Bambang,Rantebulahan-Maha1a'an. On the other hand, the greater linguisticdistance between (at least two of) the three, make allocationdecisions a bit stickier.

Tabu1ahan seems to be regarded in some sense as the originalor central dialect (mythological origins derive from Tabu1ahan).Bambang, however, is more basic, on first glance, to thepolitical, social and economic directions of the PUS area.

Another fac~or in deciding on placement is the distributionaf Muslim, Christian and animistic villages. The Bambang dialectis spoken by some of all three, and probably would giveopportunity potentially to interact with all three subgroups. Theextent that Aral1e-Tabu1ahan and Rantebu1ahan-Maha1a'an isunderstood by all three religious groups still needs to bedetermined.

Also to be considered is the presence of Ken -George in Mambithrough June, 1985. He requested that SIL not place a team in thearea of his jurisdiction, that is, in desas Mambi and Bambang.

Finally, isolation cannot be overlooked. Without an airstripat least for emergency use, any UNHAS-SIL team would be at leastone day's trail time from a main road, in most places two days.Lakahang, the least isolated of northernwPUS locations and flatenough to have its own airstrip, has the double disadvantage ofgenerally being on the fringe of the PUS area and of being toocosmopolitan, too heterogeneous.

Of the PUS villages which we either passed through or wherewe actually stayed a night (Mambi, Aral1e, Saludadeko, Tampalopo,Tabu1ahan, Taora, Sodangan), any of them but Mambi would be goodlocations for an UNHAS-SIL team, at least for the first year oruntil the area had been evaluated in greater depth.

PUS1 15

B.efereneesGrDDes, Charles and Barbara Gr~es, Languages of South Sulawesi

(to appear).

Mandadung, Arianus, 1982. Mamas a (Kondosapata' Waisapalelean)Dalam In£ormasi-Sejarah, -Budaya, -Pariwisata.

Samar, Abd. Azis and Arianus Mandadung, 1979. Ungkapan Sejarah danBudaya di kabupaten Po lewali-Mamas a , SulSel. Seri "A" -(Daerah Kondosapata'!Mamasa).

16 PUSl

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageINTRODUCTION 18THE TERM "PlTU ULUNNA SALU" 18SURVEY ITINERARY 19LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 24OUR FINDINGS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF THE FORMER SURVEYS 32PRESENT RESIDUES - FORTIlERRESEARCH 3SLANGUAGE USAGE 3SNONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION 36CONCLUSION 39

REFERENCES 40

Table 1: Government and Population of Area Surveyed 22Table 2: Cognate Percentages and Grouping of Wordlists 27Table 3: Languages and Dialects Surveyed with Estimated

Number of Speakers 29

Figure 1: PUS Dialect Chain 32

Map 1: Kabupaten Polewali Mamas a , West-Central andNorthern Sections 21

Map 2: Languages and Dialects of Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa,West-Central and Northern Sections 28

PUS2 17

1JRIIAS-SIL SOCIOLIIICIJISTXC SuKVSI:XABUPATER POLEWALI MAMASA, WEST-c:aDAL SBCnOR

Kare J. Str~mme

DITBODOCTIOB

The survey was conducted by Thomas V. Laskowske and KareStr~e September 27 October 9, 1984 with the intention ofcomplementing earlier UNHAS-SIL surveys in the area, i.e. theinitial survey carried out by Charles E. Grimes and Francis B.Dawson in January 1983 and the following survey by Timothy Fribergand Eui Jung Kim in December 1983, thus bringing the generalsurvey of the whole area to completion. The survey conducted byGrimes and Dawson gave an initial general overview of the languagesituation in this area, often refer~ed to as pitu Ulunna Sa1u(PUS), based on word1ists taken in the village of Mambi only.Friberg and Kim carried out a more detailed survey of the northernpart of PUS, seeking to verify the conclusions made by Grimes andGrimes in Languages of South Sulawesi (to appear).

In his pitu U1unna Salu survey report of kabupaten PolewaliMamas a , Northern Section; Friberg basically agrees with theconclusions of Grimes and Grimes for this northern part, althoughhe seriously questions the Grimeses in taking Aralle-Tabulahan andBambang as dialects of one language instead of two separatelanguages. Friberg also expresses several opinions about thelanguage situation in the central and southern parts of the PUSarea, but these are only based on second-hand information.

Our immediate purpose for this survey, therefore, was toinvestigate the linguistic situation in central and southern PUS,expanding on the work of Grimes and Dawson and, together with thefindings of Friberg and Kim, to establish more exactly the dialectboundaries in the PUS area. In doing so we visited kelurahanMambi and desas Rantebu1ahan and Mehalaan in kecamatan Mambi aswell as neighboring desa Sindagamanik in kecamatan Mamasa andSumarorong village to the east and desas Tapango and Bulo inkecamatan Wonomulyo to the south. (Kecamatan (subdistrict), theadministrative unit between kabupaten (district) and desa (asmaller administrative area made up of several villages). Theterm kelurahan, which corresponds to desa, is used for morecentral/prestigious areas.) Through processing the 14 wordlistsand 10 sociolinguistic questionnaires that were obtained, allexcept Rantepa1ado, Matangnga, and Bu10 in the respectivevillages, the objectives for the survey were met.

TIlE TBJD( "PlTU lJLDllIRA SAW"

The term IIpituUlunna Salu" literally means "seven riverhead". According to historical information available about thearea, "Pitu" (seven) refers to seven members of a formersociopolitical federation, while "U1unna Salu" (river head)designates the area of this federation, i.e. the area around theupper part of the Mapili river. The federation, which was formed

18 PUS2

in the distant past and stayed more or less intact until the Dutchtook over the administration of the area, consisted of thefollowing seven areas: Tabulahan, Ara11e, Mambi, Bambang,Rantebulahan, Matangnga, and Tabang. Except for Tabang (northeastof Mamasa) all of these areas are within the area covered by thedifferent PUS surveys, and except for Tabang and Matangnga all ofthem are within kecamatan Mambi.

The people in this area, however, never seem to have referredto themselves as the PUS people but always as "To" + name ofvillage (e.g. "To Aralle"), which is still the case. Moreover,nobody seems to refer to his language as the PUS language. Toname their language they either use "Bahasa" + name of village ora local term. This was probably also the case in former times.According to our findings the parts within this area that are mostremote from each other (disregarding Tabang, for which we have noinformation), relate to each other linguistically at a cognatelevel of only about 70%. This relatively high difference probablyexplains why the people prefer to name their language according totheir village rather than using a common language name for thewhole area.

Nevertheless, many linguists, including Esser, Salzner, andGrimes and Grimes, have found the linguistic unity of the areasufficient to speak of one language, for which they have used thename of the former sociopolitical federation, Pitu Ulunna Salu.(It should be noted that Grimes and Grimes also have includedwithin the PUS language two dialects, Tapango and U1unda, that arenot spoken within the limits of the former PUS federation.Interestingly, we have found that these dialects do not belong tothe languages spoken within the area of this federation.) As PituUlunna Salu is already a commonly accepted label in linguisticcircles, and in the absence of better alternatives, we willcontinue to use this label for the largest language of the area.Because we have also suggested another language within thiR area,Ara1le-Tabulahan, it should be noted, however, that our use of PUSas a language name is not identical with that found in previousdescriptions of the area. Our use of PUS as a label for asubfamily of languages is also new. The area covered by thissubfamily is somewhat larger than the area of the former PUSfederation.

SDKYKt ITIlIER.AB.Y

Sept. 27: We left Ujung Pandang on motorcycles in theafternoon and drove to Pare-Pare, where we spent the night.

Sept. 28: We drove to Po1ewali early in the morning.Reporting at the bupati's office (office of the highestadministrative officer at the kabupaten level), we met with the

PUS2 19

Sekwilda (Sekretaris Wilayah Daerah, the second highestadministrative officer at the kabupaten level), who immediatelywrote letters of introduction for us to the camats (highestadministrative officer at the kecamatan level) of Mambi,Sumarorong, and Wonomulyo. As the camat of Mambi was in Polewaliat that time, we went to meet with him after lunch. He wanted towrite the letters of introduction to the kepa1a desas (highestadministrative officer at the desa level) in Mambi himself, but hehad to contact his office in Mambi via radio before he was able todo so. We spent the rest of the day in Polewa1i.

Sept.~: The letters were ready about 10 a.m., and we leftimmediately for Mambi, stopping briefly in Sumarorong, where weleft a letter for the camat. We arrived at Malabo at 4.15 p.m.after an additional stop because of heavy rain, and then startedout on the very poor and slippery road from there to Mambi. Aftera hard drive with several falls, we reached the village of TondokBakaru just before dark. The kepa1a kampung (administrative headat the village level) there kindly invited us to stay in his housefor the night, which we gladly accepted. We also took a word listfrom him that evening. We asked about the condition of the roadfrom there to Mambi, but the answers were somewhat unclear andconflicting.

Sept. ~ The trail was still quite muddy next morning, sowe first decided to leave our motorcycles there and walk in toMambi. We hired a horse to carry our baggage and set off. Aftera short distance we met a man just coming from Mambi. He assuredus that the trail was in good condition all the'way, so we wereconvinced to go back to get our motorcycles. But we did not getfar on our bikes before we realized otherwise. After 9 km and 2hours of hard struggle, we decided to park the cycles again in thevillage of Galung-Ga1ung. It took us about 3 hours to walk the12-13 km from there to Mambi. In Mambi we stayed at the houseof Pak Rahman, a man we had met in Polewali who had invited us tostay at his house. We were able to use this house as a base forseveral of our trips the following days. When we arrived, we metwith Ken George, an American anthropologist who was staying in thesame house. He arranged for us to meet with the local police thatnight and gave us helpful information about the linguisticsituation of the area. We were also able to get a wordlist from anative Mamb1 speaker that evening.

Oct. 1: The police came to check our papers again, and inthe afternoon we got the permission to conduct the survey.Meanwhile Ken George had asked us not to enter desa Bambang forvarious reasons relating to his research work. When he was ableto provide a native Bambang informant (from the Rantepaladovillage), we agreed to this and took our Bambang wordlist withh~.

20 PUS2

Map1: KabupatenPolewali Kamas.West-Central and Northern Section

LEGEND.

Kab. borderKec. •Des. •Vehicular roadFoot/Horse trailA~inlstrative town of Kab.

• village of Kec.• •• Desa

Other II i11agoRiverDistanc. b.tw •• n \/111ag•• in k~.

N ••• Dr ad.\nl,tr.ti". unitNa•• Dr "i1lag. and ad.inia-tratlv. urrI t

PUS2 21

Kecamatan Pop. Desa/Kelurahan Pop. Village surveyed Pop.Mambi 31846 Buntumalangka 5416 Tampalopo 225

(Burnal) Saludadeko 311Tabulahan 2404 Tabulahan 400

Periangan 225Aralle 5341 Aralle 200Bambang 5828 Rantepalado 600Mambi 5586 Mambi 200*

Galung 100Rantebulahan 3890 Keppe 445

Ga lung-Ga lung 200Mehalaan 3381 Mehalaan 1000

Kondo 100

.Mamasa 30145 Sindagamanik 2124 Tondok Bakaru 860

Sumarorong 16061 Tadisi 2626 Sumarorong 500Matangnga 2599 Matangnga 1000

Wonomulyo 76568 Tapango 4088 Tapango 535Bulo 5125 Polliwa 500

Bulo Not reportedKaromban 90*

Notes:

Population figures for the kecamatans and desas/kelurahans aretaken from Kabupaten Polewali Mamasa Dalam Angka~. (KantorStatistik kabupaten Polmas). Population figures for the villagesare estimates given by our informants.

* Indicates reported number of households.

22 PUS2

Table 1: Government and Population of Area SUrYeyed

Oct. 2: We walked to Mehalaan, 14 km - 3 1/2 hours' walk,and did a wordlist and a sociolinguistic questionnaire there. Wewere informed there that the dialect at Kondo, the southernmostvillage of the desa, was quite different from that at Mehalaan.Unfortunately, we had already arranged to go back to Mambi thatnight, stopping for a wordlist and questionnaire at Keppe on ourway, so it was not possible to continue to Kondo then. We went onto Keppe, completed our work there with the kepala desa, and gotback to Mambi at about 8 p.m.

Oct. l: We left Mambi for Galung, the westernmost village ofthe kelurahan, with a guide in the morning. After 8 hoursincluding numerous stops and changes of guides in the villagesalong the route, we finally reached our destination (actually only16 km from Mambi). As the kepala kampung was not present, we werereceived by the religious leader in the village, and we were ableto complete a wordlist that night.

Oct. 4: After we had also completed a questionnaire atGalun~ w; returned to Mambi. This time we were able to do thedistance in about 5 hours. Having hired horses to take ourbaggage, we immediately set off for Galung-Galung in the easternpart of Rantebulahan, where we had parked our motorcycles. Wecompleted a wordlist with the kepala kampung there the same nightand decided to go on to Kondo the next day.

Oct. 5: Having completed a questionnaire in Galung-Galung,we ser- off for Kondo, this time on our motorbikes. We had beentold that the trail from there to Mehalaan was quite good, whichproved to be true. We were able to drive the 15 km in about anhour. We parked our motorcycles in Mehalaan, got our letter ofintroduction from the kepala desa's office, walked the 18 km toKondo, and got a wordlist and a questionnaire there the samenight.

Q£!.~: We walked back to our motorcycles in Mehalaan anddrove the S4 km from there to Sumarorong. The stretch fromMehalaan to Sika via Leko was reasonably good for motorcycles,much better than the Mambi trail. Arriving at Sumarorong at about8 p.m., we checked in with the head of the camat's office andspent the night at a guesthouse nearby.

Oct. 7: The head of the camat's·office arranged for us tomeet -;Ith- a native Sumarorong speaker in the afternoon, and wewere able to get both a wordlist and a questionnaire filled 1n.We were also able to make contact with some people from Matangngathat evening, and arranged to come back next morning to do awordlist and a questionnaire with them.

Oct. 8: Having finished our work with the Matangnga people,we dro;e down to Polewali, where we checked in with the kabupatenpolice. We then went straight on to Wonomulyo, checked in withthe kecamatan police and the camat there and set off for Tapango(on motorcycles) with a guide from the camat's office immediatelyPUS2 23

after lunch. We got both a wordlist and a questionnaire filled inwith the help of the kepala desa there and went on to Polliwa inDesa Bulo with the same guide. There we met with the kepala desa,who also served as our informant. He had grown up in the nearbyvillage of Bulo, but claimed to be aware of all the dialectdifferences between the two villages, so we actually made twowordlists based on his information. The night was spent in hishouse.

Oct. 9: Being somewhat uncertain about the accuracy of thePolliwa-wordlist taken the night before, we checked it with anative speaker from that village. Then we drove on to Karombang,the most interior village of desa Bulo accessible by motorcycle.Having completed a wordlist and a questionnaire there, we headedback to Wonomulyo, checked out at the camat's office and thepolice there, and drove back to Ujung Pandang that afternoon andevenlng.

LAlIGDAGE ABALYSIS on llESULTS

Our survey objectives have basically been attained by acomparison of the 14 wordlists we took in the area. To get theoverall picture of the language situation in the whole PUS area,we have also included in our comparison the lists taken by Grimesand Dawson and by Friberg and Kim on their survey trips to thisarea. We have also included several lists taken by Grimes andDawson in the surrounding areas, i.e. the Mamasa, Pattae', and theBalanipa and Malunda lists of the Mandar language. The 10sociolinguistic questionaaires taken and informal questioning ofvarious people, have shed further light on the language situation.

The wordlist used was the same that was used by Friberg andKim and almost identical to the one used by Grimes and Dawson ontheir PUS surveys. Of the 216 Indonesian words on the list, 16were eliminated for the comparison, many because the words causedconfusion and were not answered satisfactorily. The cognatedecisions were made according to the inspection method (synchronicapproach). This means that the comparison was made on the basisof present phonetic similarity, taking into consideration, ofcourse, features such as consistent correspondances, as forinstance between [h] and [w] and between [h] and [r] in variousdialects. The same method was used both by Grimes and Grimes andby Friberg in their cognate decisions.

We also made our own cognate decisions on the listspreviously taken by Grimes and Dawson and by Friberg and Kim inorder to make sure that the same methods were applied to all listsincluded in our comparison. Our cognate percentage calculationsturn out very similar to theirs, with an average deviation of only+/- 1.4% from Grimes and Grimes' and + 2.7% from Friberg's

24 PUS2

Under 15%: Belong to different phylaOver 15%: " " the same phylum

11 25%: " " It " superstock" 45%: " " " " stock" 60%: " " 11 " familyII 75%: " n 11 11 subfamily" 80%: " " " " language

These levels, however, cannot be followed blindly when groupingwordlists. Other factors must also be taken into consideration,such as how the people in the area view the relatedness of theirlanguage with those around them. To make more definite decisionsabout language boundaries may require some intelligibilitytesting.

In our grouping we have basically followed Grimes a~d Grimes'80% limit in dividing up the languages. The Tondok Bakaru list,however, we have chosen to group with Mamasa due to the fact thatthis is clearly how the people there perceive the relatedness oftheir dialect, although it also relates to the PUS lists at 80% orabove. Also the cognate percentage is somewhat higher with Mamasathan with the PUS lists.

Mambi relates both to the Aralle-Tabulahan and the PUS listsabove 80%, but as it shows a somewhat higher lexical similaritywith" the former group (86% with Grimes and Grimes'Ara11e-Tabu1ahan list), we have chosen to include Mambi as adialect of the Aral1e-Tabulahan language. It should not beoverlooked, however, that Mambi has a clear transitional positionbetween the Ara1le-Tabulahan and PUS languages.

The same can be said about Matangnga in relation to PUS andPannei. Despite its clear transitional position between the two,we have chosen to include Matangnga as a dialect of PUS because ofits somewhat higher average lexical similarity with the PUS lists.

In establishing the PUS subfamily we have chosen to go downfrom Grimes and Grimes' 75% limit to about 70%. There is a clearchaining relationship between the languages grouped into thisfamily, and there is also a clear drop in cognate percentagesbetween this group and the Pattae' and Mandar languages.

As for the lists grouped under the Mamas a language, theseshare a cognate average of about 79% with the PUS lists. It istherefore well understandable that Salzner could group thesetogether in a Sa'dan group. Despite this we have chosen to follow

PUS2 25

calculations. On that basis we may conclude that our methods inmaking the cognate decisions have been quite similar, although itis evident that we have been somewhat more liberal than Fribergand Kim in this respect.

Grimes and Grimes have grouped their word lists according tothe following hierarcy on the basis of shared cognate percentages:

Esser and Grimes and Grimes in separating the two. When theAralle-Tabulahan and Pannei languages are included in a PUSsubfamily, Mamasa definitely relates closer to the other languagesGr~es and Gr~es list under the Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily than tothe PUS subfamily.

Gr~es and Gr~es do not clarify what cognate percentage theyhave used to distinguish between dialects of one language. Alltheir word lists taken in the PUS area are listed as separatedialects. As the highest cognate percentage between any of theselists is 91%, we may conclude that they have considered anythingunder that figure to be separate dialects. We have basically usedthat same figure in separating the dialects. Due to the extensivechaining pattern in this area, however, it is very difficult todraw boundaries. Extensive intelligibility testing will have tobe undertaken in the area before firmer conclusions may be drawn.As our survey did not include any testing of that kind, ourdecisions with regard to the dialect boundaries must be consideredto be somewhat tentative.

Based on the criteria described above, the results of ouranalysis are portrayed in the matrix of Table 2. These may besummarized as follows:

Separated from the Toraja-Sa'dan subfamily to the north andeast and from the Pattae' and Mandar languages to the south andwest, we suggest a PUS subfamily of languages. This consists ofthe PUS language, the Aralle-Tabulahan language, the Panneilanguage, and probably at least one other language to the west ofthese, represented by our wordlist from the village of Kondo. Asfor the dialect divisions within these languages, we tentativelysuggest eight dialects within the PUS language (i.e. Bumal,Issilita', Bambang Hulu, Salu Mukanan, Mehalaan, Pakkau, Pattae',and Matangnga), three dialects within the Aralle-Tabulahanlanguage (i.e. Aralle, Tabulahan, and Mambi), and two dialectswithin the Pannei language (i.e. Tapango and Bulo).

In the following paragraphs we will further explain theseconclusions.

Mambi and Matangnga's special pos1t10ns have already beencommented on above. Due to the extensive linguistic chaining inthe area, it is also difficult to group the other lists. Thepicture is further complicated by the fact that we do not knowexactly what villages Grimes and Dawson's informants represented,as their wordlists are only named after the desas (Bambang,Rantebulahan, and Mehalaan). Also we were not able to check outthe villages in desa Bambang in person. (Our Rantepalado wordlist(western Bambang) was obtained from an SMA student in Mambi).According to Ken George and information obtained at Galung-Ga1ungthere are two dialects in desa Bambang, Issilita' (the westernpart, including Rantepalado) (Losudabota, as our Rantepaladoinformant called his dialect, is probably an alternate name for

26 PUS2

Table 2: Cognate Percentages and Grouping of Vordli8ts

PUS2 27

Kap2: LaD.guapa an4 dialects of kabapateaPol_li __ aWest-Central and Northern Section

Language boun~aryOialect boundaryI:ao. borderVillage where wordlist has been takenOther townl.anguage namoName of dialectName of village and dialect

28 PUS2

Language Dia1ec t

PUS 22000 Buma1 5500Issi1ita' } 6000Bambang Hu1uSa1u MUkanan} 4000PakkauMeha1aan 3500Pattae' 500Matangnga 2500

Ara11e-Tabu1ahan 12000 Ara11e 5500Tabu1ahan 2500Mambi 4000

Mamasa 50000 Sindagamanik 2000Sumarorong 10-15000

? "Kondo" 500

Pannei 9000 Bu10 5000Tapango 4000

Note:-The figures above are estimates made on the basis of thepopulation figures given for the roughly correspondingadministrative units in table 1.

o

PUS2 29

Table 3: t.anaaaPa aacl Dialect. of Area SU1wet'edwith .ati..at:ed ~ of Speakers

Issi1ita') and Bambang Hu1u (or To Sa1u)(the eastern part). Asour Rantepalado word1ist relates to the GrLnes and Grimes' Bambanglist at only 90%, it is quite likely that these represent thosetwo different dialects. There are also cases of consistentphonetic differences between the two lists. Thus the Bambang listhas [h] where the Rantepalado list has [r]. We have thereforedecided to follow what was reported about the language situationin Bambang, splitting the desa up in two separate dialects.

The question still remains, however, how these dialectsrelate to those to the north and to the south. According toinformation obtained in Mambi and to some extent in Galung-Galung,due to a former migration of people fr~m the south to the north inthis area, the villages in eastern Bambang share the same dialectwith those in the eastern part of Rantebulahan to the south andwith those in desa Bumal to the north. This is not evident fromour cognate percentage calculations, however. According to theseboth the Rantepalado and the Bambang lists relate to those fromBumal (Saludadeko and Tampa1opo) at only 90%, and to theGa lung-Galung list (eastern Rantebulahan) at 91%. This seems toindicate that the two Bambang dialects may be distinguished fromboth Bumal and eastern Rantebulahan.

As Saludadeko and Tampalopo relate to each other at 94%, itwould seem natural to group them into one Bumal dialect distinctfrom the Bambang dialects. But as to eastern Rantebulahan thepicture is more obscure. Galung-Galung relates to our Meha1aanlist as high as 94% (92% with Grimes and Grimes' Mehalaan list,which probably represents a village closer to Keppe). The twoMehalaan lists relate to each other at only 90%. This would seemto indicate that eastern Rantebulahan should be included withMehalaan rather than with eastern Bambang. However, if we takesome of the phonetic features into consideration, these seem topoint to the opposite conclusion. Thus the Galung-Galung listgroups with eastern Bambang in having [h] where Mehalaan has [r].Also in Galung-Galung all final nasals are [m] as on the Bambanglist, while in Meha1aan they are [n]: or [n] , So this caseobviously needs to be further checked. First of all the word1istsalready taken ought to be double checked, adding missing synonYms,for instance. More word1ists from the eastern part of Bambang(assuming Grimes and Grimes' list is from that part) wouldprobably also shed further light on the situation. Meanwhile,because of the incomplete and ambiguous data available and alsobecause of the fact that people at Ga1ung-Ga1ung gave a separatename for their form of speech, Sa1u Mukanan, we have chosen tocall the form of ,speech in eastern Rantebulahan a separatedialect. We have chosen to name this dialect Sa1u Mukanan, inaccordance with our Galung-Ga1ung informant.

Keppe relates to Grimes and Grimes' Rantebulahan list at 93%,4% higher than to Galung-Galung and 3% higher than to Grimes and

30 PUS2

PUS2 31

Gr~esf Mehalaan list. This,seems to indicate that the informantfor Grimes and Grimes' Rantebulahan list was from westernRantebulahan and that this area forms a separate dialect. Thedialect split through desa Rantebulahan was also reported atKeppe. The division corresponds to the division betweenChristianity and Islam in this desa, going through the village ofKeppe. (Our wordlist was taken in the western, Muslim part of thevillage.) In accordance with information given at Keppe, we havechosen to call the dialect of western Rantebulahan Pakkau.

Galung, in the western part of kelurahan Mambi, relatesclosest to the Grimes and Grimes' Rantebulahan list and our Keppelist, 91% and 89% respectively. This further indicates that theGrimes and Grimes' Rantebu1ahan list probably belongs to westernRantebulahan, most likely to the area west of Keppe. Despite theclear ties with western Rantebulahan, we have chosen to suggest aseparate dialect for the area of Ga1ung and to call it Pattae'(not to be confused with the Pattae' language, also included inour matrix) in accordance with the local people. According toinformation obtained there, the dialect also includes the villagesof Salung and 5ambaho in the western part of kelurahan Mambi, aswell as the villages of Urekang and Pupenga across the border tokabupaten Majene (in desa Ulumandak).

As illustrated in figure 1 below, there is a clear chainingrelationship between these dialects. All relate to theneighboring dialects at 89-90%, while the extreme points in thechain only relate at 84-85%.

Although included as a dialect of the PUS language, Matangngahas not been included in the dialect chain of figure 1 as it -doesnot seem to be in a clear chaining relationship with these otherdialects. But, as has already been pointed out, Matangnga formsan important link between the PUS and Pannei languages.

Our matrix of cognate percentages also seems to point to somekind of chaining relationship between Aral1e-Tabu1ahan, Kondo, andKarombang. Thus the Kondo wordlist, as the central link, relatesto both the Karombang, ,Grimes and Grimes' Aral1e-Tabulahan, andFriberg and Kim's Aralle wordlists at an average of 79%, whilethese Aralle-Tabu1ahan lists relate to Karombang at an average ofonly 15%. The close relationship between these western villagesof the area, together with the clear gap between these and theMandar dialects, indicates some kind of linguistic unity in thisintermediate area. This also corresponds with the informationobtained at Kondo and Galung.

At Kondo the residents told us that they were Umnigrants fromLakese in desa Bulo and that they speak the same dialect as thepeople in that village and Tanete (also in Bulo). Penatangan(desa Bulo) and Tubbi (desa Tubbi, kecamatan Tuta1lu) were said toshare a closely related dialect. Interestingly, people at Kondo

Pigare 1: PUSDialect Cltain

also called their language Pannei. This might be a furtherindication of chaining in the area between Kondo and Karombang.

At Galung we were told that Bahasa Ulumandak is the same asPannei. This indicates that the same chain continues northwestfrom Kondo into desa Ulumandak in Majene. Although different fromtheir dialect, people at Kondo claimed to understand Ulumandak.According to information Friberg and Kim obtained at Aralle, thepeople there also claim Ulumandak to be a closely related dialect.This points to the continuation of the chain into the area ofAralle.

To check all these claims and indications, investigationneeds to be undertaken in the desas of Ulumandak and Tubbi as wellas the northern part of desa Bulo. Meanwhile we have chosen toseparate Kondo from both the Pannei and the Aralle-Tabulahanlanguages.

OUR FIllDIBGS COIIPAllED trIm mon OF THE I'OJlMD. SURVEYSIn the following we will briefly compare our conclusions with

those made by Grimes and Grimes and Friberg and Kim for this area,pointing out' similarities and differences. Later we willsUmmarize the new findings that have come of of our survey.

Bumal

Issilita'

32

~Bambang Hu It

PUS2

-..Salu Mukanan

Mehalaan

PakkauPattae'

Si.ilaritiesWe have confirmed Grimes and Grimest classification of PUS as

distinct from both Mandar and Toraja Satdan. We have alsoconfirmed their observation that the PUS dialects relate to eachother in a complex pattern of interrelationships, mainly by thefeature of chaining. As far as the actual dialects are concerned,Meha1aan is the only one that we both list with the same name as adialect of PUS. The other dialects they list, we have eithergrouped outside of the PUS language or divided up as two dialectswith different names.

We have confirmed the existence of a Tapango dialect, buthave not included it within the PUS language, rather as a dialectof Pannei. As far as Ulunda is concerned, we think that what theGrimes and Grimes really refer to is the U1umandak dialect spokenacross the border to Majene. According to present informationthis dialect may not be classified as a dialect of PUS. Ittherefore appears that the PUS dialect we found in the westernpart of kelurahan Mambi, Pattaet, has until now been overlooked.

With Friberg and Kim we agree with separating out Perianganfrom the PUS language. Concerning Aralle-Tabulahan they say thatthey are in serious doubt as to whether this area can beconsidered a dialect of PUS due to the low cognate percentageswith the other PUS dialects (except Mambi). We have acted on thisdoubt in suggesting a separate Aralle-Tabulahan language.Regarding the internal relationship between Aralle and Tabulahan,we agree with Friberg and Kim in describing them as close butseparate dialects. Whether they may be reduced to one dialect, asthey have indicated, still remains to be proved. The same is thecase with regard to the Bumal and Bambang dialects and theRantebulahan and Mehalaan dialects, of which both sets show aninternal cognate relationship of about the same level (i.e.89-90%).

Although Friberg and Kim did not take any wordlist ~n Mambiitself, they observed that Mambi is not closely related to any ofthe other dialects of the PUS area. Ours and Grimes and Grimes'wordlists from Mambi confirm that. The closest relationship iswith the Aralle dialect at 86%.

DifferencesAs already indicated, our conclusions differ to some extent

with those of the former surveys as to which dialects should beincluded within the PUS language and as to how the dialectdivisions within PUS should be made.

Contrary to Grimes and Grimes we have separated out Aralle,Tabu1ahan, Mambi, and Tapango, classifying the former three asdialects of a separate Aralle-Tabulahan language, and the latteras a dialect of the Pannei language. As already noted, we havefound a new dialect, Pattae', in the western part of kelurahan

PUS2 33

Mambi and explained Ulunda as referring to Ulumandak ~n Majene.Their Bambang dialect we have divided into three dialects, Bumal,Issilita', and Bambang Hulu. Rantebulahan we have divided intotwo dialects, Pakkau and Salu Mukanan.

As they did not obtain any wordlists from Bambang,Rantebulahan, and Mehalaan, Friberg and Kim only suggest apossible configuration for these areas. They talk about aBumal-Bambang related set of dialects and a Rantebulahan-Mehalaanrelated. set, without mentioning anything about dialect chaining.Our findings do not support this grouping. According to our datathe border between Bambang and Rantebulahan (eastern part) is nomore clear than the borders between the other adjacent links inthe dialect chain we have suggested. As Figure 1 shows, there isa continuous chaining all the way from Bumal to Pattae', eachdialect relating to the adjacent dialects at about 90%. Thus,rather than to related sets of dialects, the current data point toa series of separate dialects in a Chaining relationship to eachother. Due to lack of data Friberg and Kim also were not aware ofthe dialect division within desa Bambang and the division betweenthe eastern and western part of Rantebulahan. Although it may bepossible to combine some of the dialects after intelligibilitytesting, our eight PUS dialec~s are not likely to be reduced tothe three postulated by Friberg.

Hew FindingsThe new findings resulting from our survey can be summarized

as follows:- Two dialects, Issilita' and Bambang Hulu, within desa

Bambang.Two dialects, Pakkau and Salu Mukanan within desaRantebulahan.A separate PUS dialect, Matangnga, in the western partof kecamatan Sumarorong.A separate PUS dialect, Pattae', in the western part ofkelurahan Mambi (assuming that Ulumandak is what Grimesand Grimes "mean by Ulunda)."A separate language to the south of PUS, Pannei, ofwhich Tapango is a dialect.A speech form, represented by at least the village ofKondo, sufficiently .different from all of the otherlanguages in the area not to be included with any ofthem, thus indicating at least one other language in thearea southwest of PUS.

34 PUS2

PRESENT RESIDUES - FOlUiWl URBCIl

We have already referred to several difficulties stillneeding investigation in order to arrive at firmer conclusionsregarding some aspects. These may be summed up as follows:

We are somewhat uncertain as to whether easternRantebulahan (Salu Mukanan) should be classified as a separatedialect or grouped with Mehalaan or with Bambang Hulu. To shedfurther light on this more word lists should be obtained fromeastern Bambang (taken within the area), and the Galung-Galunglist should be further checked for synonyms.

- We are unsure where the language boundaries of the languagerepresented by Kondo are, we do not know the precise extent of thePannei language, and we are generally unsure about the linguisticsituation in the area between PUS and Mandar (desa Tubbi and thenorthern part of desa Rulo in Polewali Mamasa and desa Ulumandakin Majene). A linguistic investigation of this area is needed toanswer these questions.

We are somewhat unsure of the necessity for establishingeight different PUS dialects. In order to check this, extensiveintelligibility testing needs to be undertaken, especially betweenthe dialects included in the chain of Figure 1. The same is truewith regard to the dialects of the Ara1le-Tabulahan and Panneilanguages.

- We are not sure how the Tabang area, a member of the formerPUS federation, relates linguistically. A wordlist sho~ld betaken there and be compared with both the PUS, Aralle-Tabulahan,and Mamasa languages.

LARGUAGE USAGE

As we did not do intelligibility or bilingualism testing orany extensive observation of language use, the following commentsare based on what was reported to us as we filled ~n ourquestionnaires and on casual observation.

Throughout the area visited, Indonesian is claimed to beknown and used in addition to the local language. Only in acouple of places our informants told us that their knowledge ofIndonesian was limited, and in one village (Karombang), althoughnot told so, this was obviously the case. How widespread theknowledge of Indonesian is within the various villages needs to befurther tested, especially as our informants were all adultmales, most of them having some official position and/or areasonable education. At several places the parents of ourinformants were reported not to know Indonesian. Obviously theintroduction of schools, even in the most remote areas, haschanged the situation a lot.

PUS2 35

At several places languages of larger neighboring groupssuch as Mandar, Bugis, and Mamasa were claimed to be known. Inmost eases it was stated that this was an acquired languageability due to frequent contact with these areas, and that thelanguages were not mutually intelligible.

With regard to claims of usage it was universally claimedthat the local language is the one normally used within thefamily. Also when working in the rice fields, rebuking otherpeople, holding traditional feasts, or telling traditionalstories, the local language is the one used. At places such asgovernment offices and health and religious centers bothIndonesian and the local language are used in most cases. In someof the less isolated areas, however, only Indonesian is reportedto be used at these places.

We may safely conclude that the local languages play animportant role in the daily lives of the people in this area.Further investigation needs to be done to establish the extent ofthe Indonesian knowledge in its various communities.

RDlILIRGUlsnc IRPOKMATIOR

Although with regard to the linguistic situation we havesought to give an overview of the whole area by also includingdata from the previous surveys, apart from the historical section,we will concentrate on the particular areas we visited for thefollowing information. A lot of similar information for thenorthern part of PUS can be found in Friberg's survey report.

HistorySome historical information is available in the books Mamas a ,

Da1am Informasi, -Sejarah, -Budaya, -Parawisata by ArianusMandadung (1982) and Ungkapan Sejarah dan Budaya di KabupatenPolewali-Mamasa,' Su1-Se1 Seri:· "Alt

2 (Daerah Kondosapata'/-Mamasa) by Abd. Azis Samar and .Arianus Mandadung (1979). Thefollowing is a short summary of this information.

According to tradition the forefather of the people in thearea, Pongka Padang, moved from Toraja and settled in theTabulahan area some time in the distant past. He and his sevendescendants later spread to all the places that eventually becamemembers of the PUS federation. In this early period there wererelatively frequent conflicts and fighting between the variousvillages as well as with the surrounding peoples. Probably due tothe evident destructive effects of this fighting and increasingpressure from outside the area, the formerly mentionedsociopolitical federation was established between Tabulahan,AraIle, Mambi, Bambang, Rantebulahan, Matangnga, and Tabang. Eachmember in the federation was assigned specific tasks or roles.This relatively united federation proved quite effective,

36 PUS2

remaining more or less intact until the Dutch took over theadministration of the area. It was not formally broken up at thattime either, but naturally lost most of its power and influence.

Under the Dutch the PUS-Mamasa area was made a subdivision ofthe Mandar administrative area, with the subdivision governmentsituated at Mamasa. This area was further divided up into threesubdistricts, of which Tabulahan, Aralle, Mambi, Bambang,Rantebulahan, and Matangnga formed one, administered from Mambi.

After the Dutch rule Mamasa (including PUS) continued to bepart of a Mandar administrative area until 1959. Then this areawas divided up into three kabupatens, i.e. Polewali Mamas a(Po1mas), Majene, and Mamuju. The former Mamasa subdistrict wasdivided into four kecamatans, i.e. Mamas a , Pana (northeast ofMamasa), Sumarorong, and Mambi.

GeographyAs with the north visited by Friberg and Kim, the southern

part of the PUS area is basically rugged and mountainous. Theonly level areas of any size are the rice fields around Mambi,Keppe, and Meha1aan. Towards the western and southern part ofkecamatan Mambi the elevation declines, but the landscape is stillvery rugged, so rugged that rice paddies are a rare sight. On theroad into the PUS area from Malabo, the highest point to be passedis on the border between Mambi and Mamasa kecamatans. From thatpoint there is a continuous descent both to the west and thesouthwest. All the rivers to the west of this point are branchesof the Mapili river, draining towards the south. Apart from thecultivated areas around the villages and a few outlying dry-fieldareas, most of the area is covered with forest.

The area we visited in kecamatan Wonomulyo to the south hasquite a different geography. This area is just off the coastalplain, so there are no real mountains. In Tapango there are onlyrelatively small hills; in desa Bulo it gets somewhat more ruggedand the forest gets thicker.

EconoaySubsistence farming is the livelihood of most people in the

southern region of PUS, rice being the most important crop. Wetfield cultivation dominates where there are sufficiently levelareas. Due to the lack of such areas towards the western andsouthernmost parts of kecamatan Mambi, dry field cultivation iscommon there. Cassava is also a common crop in those areas.Otherwise various kinds of vegetables are commonly grownthroughout the region. Coffee seems to be the most common cashcrop, usually being sold to traders at the Mambi or Galung-Galungmarkets by those in kecamatan Mambi. Some rattan and other woodproducts are sold. Basic food supplements, clothing, and var~oustools are bought with the cash. Meat seems to be rare in the

PUS2 37

diet; dried fish ~s more common, usually bought at the localmarkets.

EducationMost of the villages in the area (even isolated ones like

Botteng and Kondo) have primary schools (SD). Mambi andreportedly Leko also have SMPs (secondary schools), and an SMA(high school) has recently been opened in Mambi. In the coastalarea there are SMAs in Po1ewa1i and Wonomulyo. These are alsoattended by many students from kecamatan Hambi, especially fromits southern parts. The educational facilities in the area mustbe considered relatively good.

ReligionThe area is divided between Christianity and Islam.

Christianity is the dominant religion in desa Bambang and theeastern part of desa Rantebulahan. The boundary betweenChristianity and Islam in Rantebulahan goes through the village ofKeppe, the eastern part being Christian and the western partMuslim. In kelurahan Mambi the majority is Muslim; all thevillages west of Mambi village are predominantly Muslim. In desaMeha1aan there seems to be a more equal distribution of Muslimsand Christians, possibly with a majority of Christians. But thevillages in the southern part of the desa are predominantlyMuslim. Desa Matangnga was also reported to be Muslim, Sumarorongis predominantly Christian, while the areas visited in kecamatanWonomulyo to the south are all Muslim.

The church in the PUS area is part of the GerejaToraja-:-Mamasa denomination. The Christian community, therefore,looks to Mamas a for spiritual direction, while the Muslimcommunity looks to the coastal area.

HealthGenerally health seems to be good throughout the area. In

addition to the clinic in Mambi there were reported to be healthcenters in the villages of Mehalaan, Matangnga, and Sumarorong.In kecamatan Wonomulyo the people go to the town of Wonomulyo forhealth care. Thus, there are health facilities within a few hoursreach for everybody in the area we visited.

Co unicationThe main markets of the central and southern parts of

kecamatan Mambi are located in the villages of Mambi andGalung-Galung. So there is frequent travel between these and theother villages of the area. The traffic is especially heavy to

38 PUS2

and from Mambi, which is also the governmental and educationalcenter of the area. People also seem to travel to Malabo, Mamasa ,and the coastal towns quite frequently. People in Matangnga andthe southern part of Mehalaan especially seem to be more orientedtowards the coastal area. They usually travel straight south toTapango, while those further north prefer to follow the road viaMalabo.

The road from Malabo to Mambi was still 1n very poorcondition. Unless extensive repair work is undertaken, it is noteven recommended for motorcycles, although with much effort it ispassable most of the way. The trail from Sika via Leko andMehalaan to Keppe was considerably better suited for motorcyclesthan the main road to Mambi, so if one is able to make it to Sika,that route is a better alternative.

In general the trails in the area are best suited for walkingor horse riding, which is how most people travel there. Some ofthe trails to the more remote villages are not even recommendedfor horse riding.

All the villages visited in kecamatan Wonomulyo areaccessible by road good enough even for cars. A new road,eventually intended to reach Mambi, 1S presently underconstruction northwards from Po1liwa. There are also plans forimproving the road between Malabo and Mambi.

Construction of an airstrip in the central or southern partsof kecamatan Mambi would be very difficult due to its ruggedness.The only areas sufficiently level would be the rice fields aroundthe villages of Mambi and Keppe, but destroying the fields forsuch a purpose would be unthinkable. Also these areas are withina day's walk or horse ride from the vehicular road at Malabo.Building an airstrip would also be very unwise in view of the factthat a new road into the area and an improvement of the presentone is being planned.

CORCLUSIORAlthough there are still several unsolved problems and

uncertainties with regard to the language situation in the PUSarea, we nevertheless feel we have attained our major goal for thesurvey and the ensuing analysis, i.e. to reach an overall pictureof the language situation in pus.

Disregarding the Tabang area and fringe villages such asPeriangan and Kondo, we have concluded that two languages arespoken in the area traditionally named Pitu U1unna Salu. We havechosen to call these languages Pitu Ulunna Salu andAralle-Tabulahan. We have suggested eight dialects within the PUSlanguage and three within the Ara11e-Tabulahan language.Furthermore, we have shown that those languages are distinct fromthose of the adjacent areas to the north (represented by the

PUS2 39

References

Esser, S.J., 1938. Talen. In Atlas van Tropisch Nederland.Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlandsch AardrijkskundigGenootschap.

Friberg, Timothy. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic Survey: KabupatenPolewali-Mamasa, Northern Section. In this volume.

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

Mandadung, Arianus, 1982. Mamas a (Kondosapata' Waisapalelean)Dalam Informasi -Sejarah, -Budaya, -Pariwisata.

Mills, R.F., 1975. Proto-South Sulawesi and Proto-AustronesianPhonology. Dissertation. University of Michigan.

Pelenkahu, R.A., et. al., eds., 1974. Peta Bahasa SulawesiSelatan. Ujung Pandang: Lembaga Bahasa Nasional CabangIII.

Salzner, Richard, 1960. Sprachenatlas des Indopazifischen Raumes.Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz.

Samar, Abd. Azis and Arianus Mandadung, 1979. Ungkapan Sejarah. dan Budaya di Kabupaten Polewali-Mamasa, Sul-Sel.

-Seri: "A" = (Daerah Kondosapata'!Mamasa).

40 PUS2

Periangan wordlist), to the east (Kamasa), to the south (Pattae',Pannei, and the language represented by the village of Kondo) andfrom the coastal Mandar dialects. Finally we have suggested a PUSsubfamily of languages including PUS, Aralle-Tabulahan, Pannei,and probably one language in the area between these and Mandar.

Within the PUS area, therefore, we see an immediate need fortwo linguistic field programs. An additional program is neededfor the Pannei language to the south and probably at least onemore in the area between PUS and Mandar.

UBBAS-SIL Sociolinguistic Survey:Seko Area (Kabupaten Luwu)

Thomas V. LaskowskeKathryn B. Laskowske

TABU OF COBrUTS

IntroductionSurvey AccountGovernment, PopulationBackground of What Is Meant by "Seko"Language Analysis and ResultsConclusions about Language RelationshipsThe Seko PeopleConclusionFootnotesReferences

Page42424343444648505151

Figures1. Villages and Government Boundaries in Seko2. Chaining Relationships in the Seko Language Family3. Map of Languages in Seko

524853

Tables1. Government and Population of Seko2. Percentage of Lexical Similarity3. Summary of Languages Spoken in Seko4. Number of Speakers of Seko Languages5. Lexical Similarity Summary

5455565757

S~KO 41

IBTRODUCTlOR

The survey of the la~guages of the Seko area was conducted asa follo~up to the survey by Grimes and Grimes of the languages ofsouth Sulawesi (to appear) in 1982-83. Our purpose was todetermine tentative language and dialect variations and theirboundaries in the area known as Seko by comparing lexicalsimilarity from wordlists taken in the Seko villages. We alsosought information about sociolinguistic factors to help us knowhow to conduct further language study in Seko. The survey' teamvisited all twenty-three villages in the Seko area. Wordlists andsociolinguistic data were obtained in most of those villages,exceptions being villages where we had no reason to suspect thatthe linguistic and sociolinguistic data was different from"othervillages.

The participants of the survey team who collected andanalyzed the data were Thomas V. Laskowske and Kathryn B.Laskowske.

SODRI ACCOUNT

The survey team left Ujung Pandang on October 13, 1984 headedfor Pa1opo. On October 15 and 16 we met the Bupati (DistrictGovernment Head) H.A. Mubara nappi, the DanDim (District MilitaryCommander), the Kapolres (District Chief of Police), and theKepala Cabang Dinas Perkebunan (Branch Director of the Departmentof Plantations) at their respective offices in Pa10po, capital ofthe Luwu District. Letters were obtained for the Camat(Subdistrict Government Head) of Limbong and for the subdistrictpolice. (The purpose of meeting with the Plantations Director wasnot part of our language survey, but was done as a service toBAPPEDA (Regional Development Planning Board) and Dinas Perkebunanto investigate the suitability of Seko for growing tea). We thenwent to Sabbang where we arranged for most of our things to becarried by horse for the four-day walk into Seko (see map, Figure1 in Appendix).

The morning of October 17, we drove our motorcycle toKanandede and reported to the subdistrict police. We stored ourmotorcycle there, at the home of a local official, although inhindsight we decided it would not have been very difficult todrive to Salutallang. We continued our journey walking to Kombawhere we reported to the Danramil (subdistrict militarycommander). We then continued on to Kawalean for the night. InSa1utallang, we met with S. Palu1lungan, the Wakil Camat (DeputyHead of the subdistrict government), who wrote letters to thekepala desas (Heads of local government) of the five desas weplanned to visit. On October 19, we left Saluta11ang with a SekoPadang man and later joined up with his five horses and his

42 SEKO

family. We arrived in Eno the evening of the second day and beganto gather linguistic and sociolinguistic data there.

Eno is centrally located in Seko Padang, so we used thatvillage as our home while travelling to surrounding villages inDesa Padang Raya and Desa Padang Balua'. We gathered data in thefollowing villages: Eno, Lodang, Bengke, Tanete, Parawa1eang, Banaand Singka10ng. While in Seko Padang, we also looked over a pieceof land which is a good site for a small airstrip. The site isfree of trees or bushes, has excellent overall clearance, and ingenerally very level, although some work would be required beforeit can be used. The only disadvantage is that it is slightlyunder 400 meters long.

From Seko Padang, we continued on November 1 to the areacalled Seko Tengah, made up of the one desa Tana Makaleang. Ofthe five villages in this area, we stopped and gathered data ~nfour: Amballong, Pewaneang, Pokappaang and Hoyane.

Finally, we went to Seko Lemo, comprised of the two desas,desa Tirobali and desa Malimongan. We passed through all thevillages in these two desas, stopping and gathering data in thetwo kota desas (principal village of the desa): Rantedanga' andKariango. From Seko Lemo we walked back out of the Seko area,reaching Salutallang on the second day where we reported at theCamat's office. We continued on that day, reporting in at Komba(Koramil) and Kanandede (police). Since leaving Kanandede on footon October 17, we had walked 333 km (207 miles). We spent thenight in Kanandede and returned the next day, the 11th ofNovember, to Sabbang and Palopo. On the 12th we reported back into the Bupati, DanDim, the police and the Kantor Perkebunan. Thatnight we returned to Ujung Pandang, arriving there early on themorning of November 13, 1984, a month after leaving.

GOVERRMERT, POPULATION

Seko is located entirely in kecamatan Limbong, kabupatenLuwu, South Sulawesi. About 16 kilometers north of Seko is theCentral Sulawesi border. All Seko is divided into three parts,consisting of five desas as listed in Table 1. (See Appendix)

Rongkong is the area along the road going into Seko and isdivided into two parts. Lower Rongkong (Bawah) extends fromSabbang to Buka, and Upper Rongkong (Atas) extends from Kanandedeto the vicinity of Salutallang.

BACICGROURD OF WHAT IS MEABT BY "SElCO"

Seko is separated from Rongkong by a distance of about 50 kmof uninhabited forest, as well as a mountain/watershed divide.All the rivers in Seko flow west into the Karama River of Mamuju,whereas all Rongkong rivers flow east to the Bay of Bone. The

SEKO 43

•

geographical isolation causes outsiders to perceive the area as aunit.

Furthermore, during the time of the Dutch rule, the area wasunified under an administrative entity and COllectively referredto as Seko. Previously, however, only the people in Seko Tengahreferred to themselves or their language with the name "Seko", asthey still do today. The term Seko is derived from a word whichmeans sahabat or "close friend".

The inhabitants of Seko Lemo are relatively recent immigrantsfrom Upper Rongkong, and they speak the Rongkong language. Thepeople living in Seko Padang prefer to call themselves 12 Padang,"the people of Padang". and their language Sua To Padang, "thelanguage of the people of Padang". They don't seem to mind,however, their language being referred to as Bahasa Seko Padang orBahasa Seko, following the tendency for groups in this part of theworld to name their language after the geographical/political areain which they live.

LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The focus of our survey was the languages of the peopleliving in Seko. Our main method for determining languagedifferences and boundaries between languages was taking wordlistsin representative villages, and then comparing those wordlists.To further understand the language situation, we tooksociolinguistic questionnaires in various villages, and also askedinformal questions as we stayed with the people or walked thetrails with them.

204 of the 216 words on the wordlist were compared. 12 wordswere eliminated because we felt those words 1) were too difficultfor the respondents to~ answer satisfactorily, usually becausethere was not a one-to-one lexical correspondence between theirlanguages and Indonesian or 2) would bias the results because oflexical repetition. After comparisons were made, the percentagesof lexical similarity were tabulated (see Table 2 in Appendix).

We determined that two words were apparent cognates when wecould readily reconstruct one word from the other based ongenerally accepted comparative reconstruction principles forphonetically similar segments. Thus we are recognizing geneticrelationships without proposing the proto-forms. This is anattempt to approximate a diachronic approach, which we feel isvalid, but we did not rigorously construct correspondence sets nordid we analyze for loan words, as would be done in an in-depthanalysis for true cognates. We felt it was beyond the scope ofthis survey to attempt a historical reconstruction. The term"cognate" where used in the rest of this paper should beunderstood to mean apparent cognate, an initial approximation oftrue cognate percentages.

44 SEKO

In some cases we made opposite dicisions than if we hadfollowed a synchronic approach. For example, we called [bua]cognate with hoa "fruit" even though more than half of thephonetic segments are different, because b is in a regularcorrespondence set weth h, and u and 0 are ~both back vowels.Again, ono is cognate~ with -unun "six" because in the firstlanguage there are no [n]s at the ends of words, and because theo's and u's are back vowels. On the other hand, we did not count[bo?u and-ba?ru] "new" as cognate even though more than half ofthe segments are the same. We may have counted them as cognate ifthere were no other evidence available, but someone from anothervillage gave both hou and bak aru for this word. Thus, hou iscognate with [bo?u] because of regular b/h correspondence setsbetween these languages; [ba"ru] is in correspondence with bak aruthrough the alternation of ?: with k and the addition of an a

Even though our methodS-were somewhat different from those ofGrimes and Grimes, When we compared our cognate dicisions withtheirs on the same wordlists, the average of the six comparisonswas exactly the same. The average variaton was 1.3% with thegreatest variation at only 2%. We conclude that our methods formaking cognate decisions produced very similar results.

According to the threshold percentages used by Grimes andGrimes in their work, two wordlists are in the same group if thepercentages are as follows:

80-100% same language75-80 % same subfamily60-75 % same family45-60 % same stock25-45 % same superstock

These values are useful for prelimenary classification based onlexical similarity, only until in-depth analyses are made of thephonologies, grammars, and lexicons. In particular,intelligibility testing is needed to differentiate languages.Nevertheless, we appreciate the value of measuring lexicalsimilarity, even for initially differentiating dialects.

Theoretically, if two people speak the same dialect, theyknow and use the same phonology, grammar, and lexicon. Therefore,one would expect 100% similiraty between two wordlists of the samedialect. However, when we compared wordlists berween speakers ofthe same dialect (according to our sociolinguistic survey) in SekoPadang, the lexical similarity ranged from 91-98% with an averageof 95%. A discussion of the factors which cause the percentagesto be less than 100% is beyond the scope of this paper. However,we feel that the percentage will go no lower than the mid-ninetiesbetween two wordlists of the same dialect provided that the fieldlinguist is experienced and that the respondent has a ready

SEKO 45

Our results confirmed the results of Grimes and Grimes'language survey of South Sulawesi as follows:

1) Seko (the language) should not be included in thenorthern South Sulawesi Family, but should be included in theSouth Sulawesi Stock. Shared-cognate range 49-59%. Average 55%.

2) The Rampi language should be excluded from the SouthSulawesi Stock. Range 34-41%, Average 38%.

3) Residents of Seko Lemo speak the Rongkong language.Range 85-90%, Average 88% (with the Rongkong Atas dialect).

4) Kalumpang, Rongkong, and Toraja should all be considereddifferent languages within the same subfamily.

90-100% one language, one dialect81-90 % one language, two dialects

with 88-92% as a gray area. Values above 90% do not prove thatthere are not two dialects, however. Significant differences inthe grammars or phonologies should be taken into account whendiscovered.

CONCLUSIOIIS ABOUT LAIIGUAGE RELATIONSHIPS

knowledge of both his own language and the elicitation language.Where a respondent gives answers reflecting an unusually highnumber of Indonesian borrowings or misunderstandings, he may causethe percentage of lexical similarity to be further lowered 3-5percent. (We had two such wordlists, Parawaleang and Kariango.)In order to allow for this possibility, we think percentages from88-100% should intially be considered one dialect, with 88-92%being a gray~ area between same versus different dialects. Lessthan 88% similarity seems to represent truly different lexicons.The field linguist needs to distinguish dialects because of thepossible need for adapting written materials for multipledialects. Therefore, as a preliminary step, we suggest thisguideline for differentiating dialects based on apparent cognatepercentages:

Range AverageRongkong with Kalumpang 73-81% 77%Rongkong with Toraja (Grimes) 74-78% 77%Toraja (Grimes)~with Kalumpang 72-75% 74%

5) Our wordlist from Seko Tengah and Rongkong Atas agreedwith the Grimes and Grimes' lists for those locations to thefollowing degrees:

46 SEKO

Seko TengahRongkong atas

Range93-99%96%

Average96%96%

6) Comparison of opposite ends of the Kalumpang area show81% similarity. we affirm that the Kalumpang language couldpossibly extend from the Mamuju-Luwu border (Bau wordlist) intoKecamatan Mambi in Polmas. (Makki wordlist taken on the UNHAS-SILPUS survey.) However, because 81% is only marginally the samelanguage, there is a definite need for further survey andintelligibility testing.

Our comparisons also revealed the following new information:1) The Seko Family is composed of not -one, but three

languages. Seko Padang was previously thought to be a dialect inrelation to Seko Tengah, and Panasuan was unclassified.

Seko Padang - Seko TengahPanasuan - Seko TengahPanasuan - Seko Padang

Range66-75%66-70%62-64%

Average71%67%63%

We don't know whether there has ever been reference to a "Padang"language in Sulawesi. In the literature, reference has been madeto only one Seko language, at best with mention of two dialects,as in the Grimes and Grimes' South Sulawesi survey. We considerthe terminology "the Seko language" too general and thereforepotentially confusing. We thus propose that the two languagesshould be distinguished by using the terms "Seko Tengah" and "SekoPadang".

2) Among South Sulawesi languages, Panasuan relates mostclosely to the Seko Tengah and Seko Padang languages (seepercentages above; also see footnote **). Chaining relationshipsamong languages in the Seko Family exist, but are not pronounced(Figure 2).

SEKO 47

Figure 2. Chaining Relationships in the Seko Language FamiIy

Wono LodangSeko Padang

Seko Tengah Panasuan

Seko languages, Panasuan relates most closely withat 58% lexical similarity and Kalumpang at 53%, puttingsame stock with these languages - the South Sulawesi

60%

70%

80%

90%

After theRongkongit in theStock.

3) The Bana language is called To Bau by the speakers of thelanguage and compares with Uma (Pipikoro) at 95% (compared with anUma wordlist obtained from Michael Martens, December, 1984). Thepeople themselves claim to originate from Kantewu (central Umaarea), and we were told that they went to live in the forest whenthe Dutch came, to avoid being governed by them. Thus, it appearsthat Bana is not a separate language, but is the Uma language.

4) We compared the wordlist from Singkalong in desa PadangBalua' with a wordlist taken in 1983 in Onondoa, the central andlargest village in the Rampi area (UNHAS-SIL Rampi survey).Lexical similarity was 92%, so we conclude that it is indeed theRampi language.

5) People from Bau claim to speak Te'da, the Karama dialectof the Kalumpang language. Although people perceive the Karamadialect as a separate dialect, our data indicates that there is avery close relationship to the Kalumpang dialect (91%). Whencomparing both of these, however, to a Makki wordlist taken on aprevious UNHAS-SIL survey (Dec 1983) in Kabupaten Polmas, thesimilarity was only 82%, indicating that this Makki word listrepresents a definitely separate dialect, not just an alternatename for Ka1umpang.

6) The wordlist taken in Lodang ranged 84-91%, average 88%,similar to wordlists taken in the rest of Seko Padang. Lodangshould tentatively be considered a separate dialect of the SekoPadang language.

TIlE SEKO PEOPLE

Economy - Subsistence farming is the livelihood of almosteveryone in Seko, as it has been for centuries. Basic foods aregrown, gathered or produced locally, including rice, vegetables,

48 SEKO

meat, fish, coffee and cane sugar. The Seko economy is onlymarginally based on money. Instead, the barter system iS used,both among themselves and with traders who come through the areawith horseloads of goods. Cloth, kitchenware, flour, white sugar,etc., can be obtained by trading coffee beans. Sometimes the Sekopeople will load their own horses with coffee, and make the4-to-5-day trip to Sabbang or Palopo and sell it for cash.Because markets are so difficult to reach, it is not profitablefor Seko people to increase food production, even though the landis fertile and could support more.

Seko's most distinctive geographical feature is itsisolation. The absence of a serviceable road connecting Seko withcoastal areas is the foremost problem mentioned by local leaders.Some years ago there was a road to Seko, but due to lack ofmaintenance it has become impassable except to horses and foottraffic. It may be several years before existing roads will beimproved or new roads built in Kecamatan Limbong. The work willprobably be done in stages, with uncertainty as to when it mightfinally reach Seko.

The altitude of the villages in Seko ranges from about 900 to1500 meters. This has proved to be suitable for coffee production.It is said that 1100-1500 meters is also suitable for growing tea.

The land in Seko Padang is broad and expansive, while in SekoTengah and Seko Lema it is steep with very little space forexpanding their rice paddies. Most of the rice grown in SekoTengah comes from dry-land cultivation. On the other hand, SekoPadang has much land suitable for paddy rice, some of which hasbeen used as such in the past, but which now lies fallow, becauseowners have moved to Central Sulawesi. (It is said that they areunwilling to move back to Seko, because the isolation preventsthem from education and marketing opportunities that ~theypresently enjoy in Central Sulawesi.) In the Seko region, SekoPadang seems to have the greatest potential for growth both inpopulation and economy.

Education Many villages have their own primary school.However, in the whole Seko area of five desas, including 23villages, there is presently only one SMP (Junior High School) inPawaneang, Desa Tana Makaleang. This SMP reflects the desire ofthe people for education, as we were told that it iS avolunteer-type school, run by the local people rather than by thegovernment. There is no SMA (High School) in the area. Theclosest SMA is in Sabbang, four days' walk from Seko, a distanceof about 125 km from most villages. A road would enable more toattend this and other schools. Regardless of limited educationopportunities, most of the Seko people we met could speakIndonesian, exceptions being children up to age 10-12 and someelderly adults.

SEKO 49

Religion - All of the people in the Seko area were reportedto be either Christian or Islam, with a greater percentage ofChristians in each language group. Seko Lemo, speaking theRongkong language, is unique in that it is about 99% Christian,while speakers of the same language in the Rongkong Atas area areabout 80% Islam.

Health Facilities - We did not hear of any health facilitiesin Seko. The closest, a Balai Kesehatan (medical clinic), is twodays' walk away, in Salutallang. Here again, a road is a feltneed. (After returning to Ujung Pandang, however, we met a youngman who said that his sister has been running a Balai Kesehatan inPokappaang for 10 years.)

CONCLUSION

By completing this survey and subsequent analysis, we feel wemet our objectives of mapping the languages in Seko based onlexical similarity. We have determined that six languages arespoken in Seko, but four of them are centered outside of Seko.Only Seko Tengah and Seko Padang are spoken primarily in the Sekoarea. These two are best considered as separate languages, ratherthan as dialects of the same language. Furthermore, we haveproposed to classify Panasuan as part of the Seko Family. Thereis a need for further linguistic field work in all three of theselanguages.

50 SEKO

** There is also a folktale told in Seko Tengah about the commonorigin of the Panasuan and the Seko people which strengthens theprobability of an ethnic relationship between them.

REFERERCESGrimes, C. E., and B. J. Grimes. To Appear. Languages of South

Sulawesi. Pacific Linguistics, Series D. Canberra,Australia.

Laskowske, Thomas V. In this volume. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguisticsSurvey: Rampi Area (Kabupaten Luwu).

Friberg, Timothy. In his volume. UNHAS-SIL SociolinguisticSurvey, Kabupaten Po1ewa1i-Mamasa, Northern~Section.

SEKO 51

FOOTNOTES

APPENDIX- Maps and Tables

Figure 1 - Villages and Government Boundaries in Seko

SEKO52

Figure 3 - Mapof Languages in Seko

53SEKO

(1) Desa population figures were obtained from the Camat'soffice.

(2) The first village listed for each desa is the Kota Desa.(3) Village population figures were generally obtained on

site from local leaders.(4) Not included in this figure are 63 Bana people who, at

the time, were not living in the Bana village.(5) A hypen (-) means that we did not obtain a population

estimate from anyone while we were in that area.

54 SEKO

Area Desa Popu1ation(1) Village(2) Popu1ation(3)

Seko Padang 1843 Eno 426Padang Balua Tanete 455

Bana (4) 120Kalammio 200Parawaleang 237Kampung Baru 100Tanete Huko 50Singkalong 457

Padang 881 Lodang 527Raya Bengke 200

Busak 200

Seko Tana 2288 Pokappaang 700Tengah Maka1eang Pewaneang 500

Hoyane 400Poak-Poak 370Amba110ng 532

Seko Tirobali 1721 Rantedanga 685Lemo Bua Kayu(5) -

Kampung Baru -Seppulung -Beroppa' -

Malimongan 921 Kariango 500Se'pon 420

Total 7654

Table 1 CovernmeAtaDdPopulation of Seko

SEKO

Table 2. Percentage of Lexical Similarity

55

SNG Singkalong STG Seko tengah-GrimesBAN Bana HOY HoyanePAR Parawaleang AMB Amba110ngTAN Tanete PAN PanasuanEN1 Eno. man from outside Seko Mak Makki - PUS SurveyEN2 Eno. woman from outside Seko KAL Ka1umpang - GrimesEN3 Eno. man from Seko BAU BauEN4 Eno. woman from Seko KAR KariangoBEN Bengke BAN Rantedanga'LOD Lodang RKG Rongkong Atas-GrimesPEW Pewaneang RKK Kawa1eanPOK Pokappaang TOR Toraja - Grimes

Table 3 - SUMmary of Languages Spoken in Seko

Language Name Village Where Spoken

Seko Padang Padang Ba1ua' (in Eno, Tanete, Ka1ammioand Parawa1eang)

Padang Raya (in Lodong and Bengke)

Uma Padang Balua' (only in Bana)

Rampi Padang Balua' (only in Singka1ong)

Seko Tengah Tana Maka1eang (in all the villages)

Rongkong Tiroba1i (in Rantedanga',Kampung Baru,Seppu1ung and Beroppa')

Ma1imongan (in both villages)

Ka1umpang Tirobali (only in Bua Kayu)(DialectTe'da)

56 SEKO

List of Abbreviations for Table 2

Kalumpang

Language Name Number of Speakers

Seko Padang About 2100 living in Seko. There are reported tobe one to two times that many Seko Padang speakersin Central Sulawesi, people who moved there in theearly 1950s and have not returned.

Seko Tengah 2502.

Rongkong 2992 living in the Seko area. There are anadditional 3039 speakers of this linguage livingin the Rongkong Atas area, south of Seko. Thistotals 6031 speakers of Rongkong, not counting theRongkong Bawah dialect.

Table 5 - Lexical Similarity Summary

South SulawesiStock

Northern ~South SulawesiFamilyTorajaSub-FamilyToraja

~Rongkong

Central SulawesiStock

SekoFamily

Table 4 - Humber of Speakers of the Three Main Languages in Seko

Panasuan

Seko Tengah

Seko Padang

PamonaFamily

KailiFamilyUma44

40 38

39 39 71

37 39 63 67 ~

36 37 51 54 58 ~

36 39 53 56 58 77

34 38 47 50 53 74 77 ~

Rampi

SEKO 57

page 58 [blank]

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

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 69

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

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

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

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 71

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 73

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 75

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 77

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",

MANDAR SURVEY page 79

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 81

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 83

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 85

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 87

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 89

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

MANDAR SURVEY page 91

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 93

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.

MANDAR SURVEY page 95

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 .

MANDAR SURVEY page 97

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

Matrix 1. Central Sulawesi Stock 105Matrix 2. South Sulawesi Stock 108Matrix 3. West Austronesian Superstock 113

Kari Valkama

TABLE OF COB"tlUftS

pageINTRODUCTION 1001. NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION 1002. METHODOLOGY 1013. RESULTS 1054. RESIDUE 1105. BIBLIOGRAPHY IIIAPPENDICES 113

MATRICES:

URBAS-SIL sociolinguistic Survey:Kabupaten Haauju

MAPs:Map 1.a. Kabupaten Mamuju, Northern section 114·Map 1.b. Languages of Kabupaten Mamuju, Northern section 115Map 2.a. Kabupaten Mamuju, Southern section 116Map 2.b. Languages of Kabupaten Mamuju, Southern section 117

MAMUJU 99

:nrrRODIJCTIOR

The survey was conducted in three parts during the periodSeptember 19 - November 14, 1985. The first trip was made by TomLaskowske and Kari Valkama September 19 - October 2 to kecamatanKalumpang and from there up the coast to kota kecamatanPasangkayu. The second trip was made by Don Barr and Kari ValkamaOctober 18 - 25 to kecamatan Pasangkayu. The third trip was madeby Kare Str;mme and Kari Valkama November 6 - 14 to kecamatanBudong-Budong, Kalukku, Mamuju and Tapalang. (The authoracknowledges valuable input from survey partner Thomas V.Laskowske to this report, especially in the determination ofsimilarity sets and matrix relations. Maps la and 2a were drawnby Kare J. Str~mme.)

The goal of the survey was to complete earlier UNHAS-SILsurveys in the area, i.e. the initial survey by Grimes and Grimesin January 1983, thus bringing the general survey of the wholearea to completion. In other words our purpose was to investigatethe linguistic situation in kabupaten Mamuju in order to establishlanguage boundaries by comparing lexical similarity betweenwordlists taken in the area concerned.

1. R(MLIlIGOISTIC IlIPOlDfATIOR

The area covered by our survey belongs to one administrative unit,kabupaten Mamuju. Under the Dutch rule and since independenceuntil 1959 the area was a.subdivision of the Mandar administrativearea. Kabupaten Mamuju is divided into six kecamatans: Tapa lang,Mamuju, Kalukku, Ka1umpang, Budong-Budong and Pasangkayu, countingfrom south to north.

The whole area is still underdeveloped, the two northernmostkecamatans being the least developed. Large road buildingprojects are under way. We were told that there is a plan tobuild a road along the coast from Mamuju to Bambamua in CentralSulawesi. At present there is a vehicular road from Mamuju toBenggaulu, but most of the bridges are still missing. We weretold that 90 bridges are needed. There is also a road buildingproject from Tasiu to Kalumpang. At present the road has reachedPabettengan, but again the bridges are missing. There are usuallyrafts to get motorcycles across the rivers and sometimes the raftsare big enough for a car.

Until the roads and bridges are completed, most travel of anydistance is by boat. There is regular traffic from Mamuju toKalukku, Sampaga, Babana and Pasangkayu. One can also travelupstream on the big rivers: Karama, Budong-Budong and Lariang. Ifone can travel as an ordinary passenger, the fare is usuallycheap, but he may need to wait for a boat that is leaving for his

100 MAMUJU

destination. The other way is to charter a boat, but then onepays a lot more. Travelling by boat during the rainy season canbe dangerous.

Kabupaten Mamuju is basically mountainous, except for thecoastal plain, which can be from five to 20 kilometers wide. Mostof the people live on the coastal plain. The mountainous areasare, generally speaking, uninhabited, except for kecamatanKalumpang. But even there most of the people live in the valleys.We were told that there are isolated groups living in themountains in the Budong-Budong and Pasangkayu kecamatans, but itis difficult to verify whether that is true. The government hasprogrammes to move those isolated groups down to more developedareas, where there are schools and clinics. There is a lot ofmigration going on in the area, especially in the sparselypopulated Budong-Budong and Pasankayu kecamatans. There are bothlocal and national transmigration projects that are being carriedout and more are planned. This may be an important factor for thelanguage, situation in the areas concerned.

Subsistence farming is the livelihood of most people in thearea, rice being the most ~portant crop. Both wet and dry fieldcultivation is used. Corn, cassava, soybean and sweet potato arecultivated to a lesser extent. Dried fish is part of the dailydiet, chicken is eaten less frequently. Copra and coffee seem tobe the most common cash crops. Cocoa and cloves are alsocultivated and rattan is cut from the jungle.

The majority of the villages have pr~ary schools (over 130SDs in the whole kabupaten). There is a secondary school (SMP) ineach kecamatan (two in Tapalang) and one high school (SMA) inMamuju.

There are over 100,000 inhabitants in kabupaten Mamuju.About 85% are Muslim, about 12% are Christian and about 1% areHindu.

2. METHODOLOGY2.A. General

The goal of the survey was to determine tentative languageboundaries by comparing lexical similarity between wordlists takenin the area concerned.

Our definition of language ~plies mutual intelligibility.So, when we speak of two separate languages, we imply lack ofintelligibility. Even though lexicostatistics is not a sufficientmeans 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.) Dyen

MAMUJU 101

notes: "The reason that 1exicostatistica1 classification isinconclusive would be the same that affects any classification;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 facts than that, a classification 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 onecomponent 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 1979:15,57f,67-87.)

2.B. Eliciting dataDuring the survey trips 26 word1ists were elicited. All

those word1ists are listed in Matrix 3 (see appendix). Listselicited during the first trip are marked (L/V), those of thesecond trip are marked (B/V), and those of the third trip aremarked (S/V). In the smaller South Sulawesi Stock matrix (Matrix2) Pedasi and Tobada lists were not used because the former was anincomplete list (containing only 41 words) and the latter waselicited from an nonnative speaker. We also included elevenword1ists from Grimes and Grimes: Languages £f South Sulawesi (toappear), four word1ists from Str~mme and Valkama's survey ofsouthwestern section of kabupaten Po1ewali Mamas a and fourwordlists from Friberg and Kim's survey of the northern part ofkecamatan Mambi in kabupaten Polewa1i Mamasa. These are marked(G), (S/V), and (F/K), respectively, in our matrix. We alsoincluded one word1ist from Michael Martens (M) and two word listsfrom Seko survey made by Laskowske and Laskowske (L/L). Thismakes the total number of word1ists 48.

The wordlist we used was a 210-item list, which was quitesimilar to the Grimes and Grimes, Str~mme and Valkama, Friberg andKim and Laskowske and Laskowske lists, and identical with theMartens list. Out of the 210 items, 200 were also on the Grimesand Grimes list, 190 were on the Str~mme and Va1kama list, 207were on the Friberg and Kim list and 209 were on Laskowske andLaskowske list. All these lists are substantially similar to theSwadesh 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 required

102 MAMUJU

that the respondent hhnself pronounce the words, so thatuniformity of pronounciation could be maintained for a givenlocation.

When Pedasi and Tobada wordlists are not counted, thefollowing statistics can be given from the remaining 24 wordlistselicited during our Mamuju survey: Our respondents' ages rangedfrom 21 to 11: 2 were between 20 and 29, 8 were between 30 and 39,4 were between 40 and 49, 7 were between 50 and 59, 1 was between60 and 69, and 2 were between 70 and 79. 8 of the respondentswere farmers, 1 was ketua adat, 1 was ketua kantor agama, 1 waskaryawan CV, 1 was kepala RT, 1 was kepala RK, 1 was kepalalingkungan, 2 were kepala desas, 1 was kepala jaga, 1 was isteriRT, 1 was ketua BP3, 1 was sekretaris desa, 2 were imams, 2 wereguru SDs. 21 of our wordlists were elicited in the respectivespeech community and 3 of them outside of the speech community.Only one of the respondents was female. The language ofelicitation was Indonesian.

2.e. Lexical siailarity

All 48 word lists were later transferred to a wordbook whereeach page contained one item in all its 48 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 1971:36).

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 aremaking synchronic comparisons rather than diachronic comparisons.Bugenhagen refers to McElhanon (1961:8), according to whom twoitems are lexically similar if there is correspondence betweenfifty percent or more of the phonemes, either as a regularcorrespondence (for the comparative method) or by phoneticsimilarity (for the inspection method). (For a discussion ofcomparative method and the inspection method, see Sanders1971:33,34.) Bugenhagen combines the comparative method with theinspection method to the extent that regular correspondences aretaken into consideration. However, he does include loanwords,which are excluded in the comparative method. So, basically wefollowed the inspection method, with the addition that regularcorrepondences were also taken into consideration. The decisionswere made on a lexically similar/lexically different basisaccording to the 50% correspondence guideline.

MAMUJU 103

Out of the 2I0-item wordlist, six items were disqualifiedbecause of ambiquity, lexical repetition, confusion, and lack ofcorrespondence between the language of elicitation and thelanguage elicited. The items were #39 "danau", #47 "hangatll

, 1105"timur" ,11106 . "barat!", fJ:152 "nenek moyang", and fJ:207"menjatuhkan".

A few other items were disqualified from some wordlists,because we strongly suspect that the wrong item was elicited. So,after the disqualifications, the wordlist containes 206 items, andsome individual wordlists even less.

2.E. Matrix

A matrix containing the comparisons between the 48 word listswas then produced with the help of a computer. The procedure for"reducing" matrices as outlined by Gary Simons (1977:75-105) andas used in the UNHAS-SIL survey of southwestern Polewali-Mamasaand kabupaten Majene was not used here, for the following reason.Though we realize that two percentage figures, say 68% and 75% maynot be significantly different:at the confidence level of .10, therepresentation of that in the matrices using the number ofcomparisons we used (1128 comparisons on 48 word1ists) becomesmeaningless. The number of instance of percentages between 70 to79 inclusive is represented below.

percentage: 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79number of

instances: 12 14 13 17 11 12 13 23 19 19

If we arbitrarily, for the sake of illustration, reduce70%-74% to 72% and 75%-79% to 77% we are hard put to explain why a69%-73% and a 74%-78% reduction to 71% and 76%, respectively,isn't equally valid. Furthermore, we hide the fact that twopercentages, here 74% and 75%, are not significantly differentwhile 70% and 79% are shown to be, though both sets arerepresented as the reduced pair, 72% and 77%. It seems best toabandon a matrix representation of reduction for as manycomparisons as we have been using. This abandonmentnotwithstanding, we still showed sensitivity to significantdifferences in our assignment of the accompanying linguistictaxonomy.

104 MAMUJU

2.D. Disqualifications

3. HEIUL'lS3.A. Gelleral

Percentages above 80 are considered to indicate one language.Percentages between 75 and 80 are considered to indicate the samesubfamily of languages; between 60 and 75, the same family oflanguages; between 45 4nd 60, the same stock of families; between25 and 45, the same superstockof stocks. (Gr~es and Grimes,Languages of South Sulawesi (to appear).) All the wordlists ofthis survey belong to the same West Austronesian Superstock. (SeeMatrix 3.) Lexical similarity percentages are generally not usedto differentiate between dialects, 80 we did not break languagesdown into dialects based on that.

3.B. Central Sulawesi Stock

As the Central Sulawesi Stock matrix shows (Matrix 1.), thisstock i, divided into two families: the Kaili-Pamona Family, whichcontains the Uma, Sarudu, Kaili, and Topoiyo languages, and theBada Family, of which Ako· is a member.

Matrix 1. Central Sulawesi Stock

Sarudu

Kaili

3.B.1 The BacIal'alBilyThe inhabitants of the Ako' village cla~ to speak the Bada

language of Central Sulawesi, and our Aka' wordlist when comparedwith the laO-word Bada list found in Barr, Barr and Salombe, shows90% lexical similarity with it. According to them, they movedfrom Bada between 100 and 150 years ago. The high lexicalsimilarity with the Bada list poses a problem, however. Accordingto Barr, Barr and Salombe, the Bada language is a member of theKaili-Pamona Family, but according to our matrix, the language

MAMUJU 105

.Bada famill-

Uma-Kaili-Pamona

Family

spoken in the village of Ako' is clearly a member of a differentfamily, which we call the Bada Family, which according to ourcalculations has a status independent of the putative Kaili-Pamonafamily of Barr, Barr and Salombe (aBBS).

A look at the comparisons may help clarify what we aresaying.

BBS matrix BBS wordlistscounted by Valkama

This survey's.wordlist

BadaIUma

Da'a

BadaUma

Da'a

Ako'Uma

Da'a~~

Clearly there is a discrepancy in calculation procedures. Thoughthis is not the place to resolve this difference, we may note thatfigures listed in Grimes and Grimes for Topoiyo, Sarudu, Pamonaand Rampi lend support to our separation of Bada, showing thatseveral of the putative members of the Kaili-Pamona Family relateto each other, not as members of the same family, but only asmembers of the same Central Sulawesi Stock. (e.g., Topoiyo andRampi relate to each othep at only 34%.) More research isassuredly called for.

[ill 651

3.B.2 The Kaili Pamona Fa.ilyAs noted immediately preceding, the family status of

Kaili-Pamona is in doubt. Furthermore, since Sarudu relates bothto Uma and Kaili at an average of over 75% lexical similarity(75.3% and 75.6% respectively), we have not divided the familyinto subfamilies.

The inhabitants of Benggaulu claim to have come from Kantewu1n Central Sulawesi, therefore it is natural that Benggaulu shows90% lexical similarity with Kantewu.

The Sarudu language is closely related to both Uma and Kaili.The Grimeses' wordlist is closer to Kaili and our wordlist iscloser to Uma. The Grimeses' wordlist shows only 86% lexicalsimilarity with our Nunu list. We were unable to trace where theGrimeses' respondent came from, most probably from a villagegeographically close to the Kaili Family. All the villages (about11) of desa Sarudu speak Sarudu, so the language seems quitestable.

The Kaili language is represented by four dialects 1n ourmatrix: 1. Da'a/lnde, known also as Bunggu/Binggi in kecamatanPasangkayu. This dialect is represented by the Dombu and TosandeI word lists in our matrix. The main area of this dialect is inCentral Sulawesi. 2. Tado, represented by the Kabuyu wordlist.According to our information, this dialect is spoken only in desaPasangkayu. 3. Baras, represented by the Salubiro and Bambaloka

-~

~

106 MAMUJU

word1ists. This dialect is spoken only in a few of the villagesof desa Baras, by about 50 households. The elders fear that theirlanguage is dying out, which remains to be seen. 4. Doi, which isrepresented by the Tampaure wordlist. Three villages in desaBambaira spoke this dialect. The main area of this dialect is inCentral Sulawesi. Also the Ledo, Unde and Rai dialects are spokenin kecamatan Pasangkayu. The main area of those dialects is inCentral Sua1wesi, so we did not take wordlists for them.

The Topoiyo language 'was originally spoken by only onevillage on the Budong-Budong river in kecamatan Budong-Budong. Atpresent it has spread to the neighbouring Tobada village, where itwas claimed that only one speaker still spoke the Tobada language.It is also spoken in the Tangkou village. So, even though a smalllanguage, it seems to be vigorous and not on the edge ofextinction.

3.C. South Sulawesi Stock

The South Sulawesi Stock is represented by the Seko Familyand the Northern South Sulawesi Family. (See Matrix 2.)

3.C.l. The Seko FamilyPanasuan is spoken 1n two villages in kecamatan Kalumpang and

Tangkou is spoken in the Tangkou village on the Budong-Budongriver in kecamatan Budong-Budong. It is also called theBudong-Budong language, which was included as a dialect of Mamujuin Grimes and Grimes' Languages of South Sulawesi (to appear).Tangkou is spoken only by about 11 households. Intermarriage andproxi~ity with Topoiyo seems to be taking over. To more firmlyestablish Tangkou as a member of the Seko Family, it has to becompared with Seko Padang and Seko Tengah.

3.C.2. The Borthern South Sulawesi PamilyThe Northern South Sulawesi Family is represented in our

matrix by the Toraja and the pitu Ulunna Sa1u (PUS) subfamiliesand the Mamuju and Mandar languages, which do not belong to anysubfamily. The Toraja subfamily is represented by five languagesin our matrix, of which Talondo' and Kalumpang are spoken inkabupaten Mamuju.

3.C.2.l. The Toraja SubfamilyThe Talondo' language is spoken in one village, Ta10ndo', in

desa Bonehau in kecamatan Ka1umpamg. It shows at an average 80%lexical similarity with the Kalumpang language, and was separatedfrom that language because all Kalumpang speakers with whom wediscussed the Ta1ondo' language, said that they cannot understandit. The Ta1ondo' list's high lexical similarity with Tarata,Pabettengan and Ka1umpang is explained by proximity and by the

MAMUJU 107

Matrix 2. South Sulawesi Stock

108

fact that lexical similarity gives only an initial picture of thelanguage situation. Intelligibility testing is needed to give thefinal word.

The Kalumpang language is divided into eight dialectsaccording to Mr. Darius Timbonga, who himself speaks Panasuan ashis mother tongue, but he lives at present in kota Kalumpang. Heseemed to be very informed about the dialect variations inkecamatan Kalumpang. It is to be noted, however, that, accordingto him, desa Karama, which is his home desa, is divided into manysmall dialects, while dialects in other desas tend to be larger.This shows that he has best information from his own desa, andtends to divide even slightly different speech forms into separatedialects. It remains to be seen whether there are more dialectsin other desas, too, or whether some of his dialects in desaKarama should be grouped together. According to him the dialectsituation is as follows (underlining indicates a village fromwhere a word1ist has been included in out matrix): 1. Mariri andLimbong villages. 2. Petangunan and Buttu villages.3. Tambing-Tambing and Kondoan villages. 4. The Te'da dialect,spoken in the Sabamba, Tararang, Sa1ukayu, Rantepata, Sa1upolinand Bau villages. 5. Bu~l10, Pekkaro and Salu villages. 6. TheE'da dialect, spoken in the Lebani, Bulo, Sa1usokang, Malo10,Tala, Lasa, Batuisi, Henua, Salu Banga, Salu Eno, Pelosian,Paradang, Sa1utake, Ka11an Baru and Salu Batu villages. (Lasa ismixed with the Toraja language.) 7. The Ta'da dialect, spoken inTamalea, Pabettengan, Lossa, Tama1eatua, Sumua, Kalumpanf'Tamessassang, Tarata, Tamanggeso, and Tambuku. Some people claunthat Ta'da should be divided into three dialects: Sandana (Tarataand Tamessassang), Leling (Tambuku and Tamangeso) and the rest.We leave this question open. It is to be noted, however, thatthis is the reason that the Tarata list has Sandana/Ta'da tag inthe matrix. 8. Dengen, Mawunggin and Tadossan villages.

The Ta'da dialect is also called the Bone Hau dialect and theE'da dialect is also called the Karataun or Makki/Mangki dialect.These two dialects are the biggest and most important Ka1umpangdialects. Grimeses' Ka1umpang respondents were from Bu10 in desaKarataun and Rantepata in desa Karama. The man from Bu10 told usthat he had mixed several dialects when he gave the word1ist. Itis therefore certain that it does not represent the speech formused in kota Ka1umpang. This also explains why our Kalumpang listshows only 85% lexical similarity with the Grimeses' Kalumpanglist.

3.C~2.2. The Pitu Dianna Salu SubfamilyOut of the pitu U1unna Sa1u subfamily, only the Ulumandak

language is spoken in kabupaten Mamuju. It is also spoken 1nkabupatens Majene and Polewa1i Mamasa. Later, one matrix coveringthe whole area is needed. According to our findings, Botteng,

MAMUJU 109

Tasiu (Sondoang), and Orobatu (Tappalang) belong to the Ulumandaklanguage as opposed to the Grimeses' grouping of them as dialectsof Mamuju. Van der Veen (1929:81-86) includes the area covered byour Ulumandak language as dialects of Pitu Ulunna Salu. Accordingto him the speech form, which we call Ulumandak, is spoken inKaluku, Rante Dango, Padang Baka, Padang Panga, Taludu and most ofthe "landschap Talapang" (Talapang area), for example in Lebani,and Lombang-Lombang. Landschap Talapang seems to correspond withkecamatan Tapalang. Generally speaking van der Veen's article isaccurate and conforms to a large extent to the findings of oursurvey.

Ortobatu shows an average of 82.6% lexical similarity withthe rest of Ulumandak and an average of 80.3% lexical similaritywith Mamuju. With Ulumandak its lexical similarity percentagesare consistently above 80% only with Padang, Sumare and Rangas.Its high lexical similarity with Padang, Sumare and Rangas can beexplained by proximity and contact more easily than theconsistently high percentages with Ulumandak.

3. C. 2.3. 'ftle Mamuju languageThe number of dialects of Mamuju stated in Grimes and Grimes'

Languages of South Sulawesi has been reduced by five: Botteng,Sondoang CTasiu), Tappalang (Orobatu) and Budong-Budong have beenassigned to other languages while Sumau and Rangas have been shownto be the same dialect. What remains then are the dialects ofMamuju (Mamuju, Babana and Sampaga), Sumare/Rangas, Padang (AnjoroPitu) and Sinyonyoi (Tampapadang). We have nothing to say againstthat dialect grouping, although Grimes and Grimes' location ofthese dialects on their map is inaccurate.

4. RESIDUE

There are still several questions that need more study:1. The relationship between the Bada Family (Ako' language) andthe putative Kaili-Pamona Family. 2. The relationship of Talondo'to Kalumpang. Is it separate language or not? 3. The borderbetween the Ulumandak and Mamuju languages. Both Orobatu andAnjoro pitu show lexical similarity at an average above 80% withboth languages.

110 MAMUJU

Bugenhagen, Robert. 1981. A Guide for Conducting sociolinguisticSurveys in Papua New Guinea. Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Dyen, Isodore. 1966. Comment. Oceanic Linguistics 5:1.32-49.

Friberg, Timothy. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic survey: KabupatenPolewali Mamasa, Northern Section. In this volume.

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

Laskowske, Thomas V. UNHAS-SIL sociolinguistic Survey: Seko Area.In this volume.

Loving, Richard. 1977 (ed.). Language Variation and SurveyTechniques. Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, Vol.21.

----. Mamuju Dalam Angka 1981/82. Kantor Statistik KabupatenMamuju.

McElhanon, K. 1967. Preliminary Observations on Huon PeninsulaLanguages. Oceanic Linguistics 6:1-45.

Pelenkahu, R.A., et ale 1974 (eds.). Peta Bahasa SulawesiSelatan. Ujung Pandang: Lambaga Bahasa Nasional Cabang III.

Salombe, C., Don Barr and Sharon Barr. 1979. Languages ofCentral Sulawesi. Hasanuddin University, Ujung Pandang.

Sanders, Arden G. 1977. Guidelines for Conducting aLexicostatistic Survey in Papua New Guinea. In Loving ed.,1977.

Simons, Gary F. 1977. Tables of significance forlexicostatistics. In Loving.

Simons, Gary F. 1979. Language Variation and Limits toCommunication. Technical Report No.3. Ithaca: CornellUniversity.

Smith, Kenneth D. 1982 (ed.). A Compendium of Articles Relatingto the Survey of Sabah Languages. To appear.

MAMUJU 111

BDLIOGUPBY

112 MAMUJU

Veen, H. van der. 1929. Nota Betreffende de grenzen van deSa'dansche taa1groep en het aanverwante taalgebied.Tijdschrift voor Indische Taa1-, Land- en Volkenkunde69:58-97.

llatru 3 - West Anatronesian Superstock

.-

MAMUJU 113

Map1a - Eabupaten ~ju, Borthern Section. l~a.tA

L.~e"J (S~ •. I. I: S"oo 1100/:

~ Proyine-ferd bo,.der

114 MAMUJU

Hap Ib - LanKUAcea of Eabapaten Ha.aju, Borthern Section

MAMUJU 115

116

Map 2a Kabupaten Ma.uju, Southern Section

MAMUJU

Hap 2b - L=&n&cea of Ealnapaten Kamju, Southern Section

MAMUJU 117

page 118 [blank]

URBAS-SIL SOCIOLIHGUISTIC SURVEY:XABUPATERS PDlRARG, ENREKABG, TARA roRAJA, LUWU

AND EASTERN PAKT OF POLEWALI MAHASA

Kari Valkama

TABLE OF COHTERTS

INTRODUCTION1. NONLINGUISTIC INFORMATION2. METHODOLOGY3. RESULTS4. RESIDUES. BIBLIOGRAPHY

MATRIXES:

Matrix 1. Mamasa and TorajaMatrix 2. LuwuMatrix 3. MasenrempuluMatrix 4. Central Sulawesi Stock

APPENDICES:

A. Matrix S. South Sulawesi StockB. Matrix 6. Central Sulawesi Stock

C. MAPS:

South Sulawesi MapMap 1. Northcentral South Sulawesi MapMap 2. Northeastern South Sulawesi Map

TORAJA

Page120120121123131131

126127129130

133134

134135136

119

This is a report of the Masenrempulu, Toraja and Luwu surveytrips. The first trip, made by Juha Christensen and Kari ValkamaApril 15 - 24, 1986, covered the northern part of kabupatenPinrang, kabupaten Enrekang and the eastern part of kabupaten TanaToraja. The second trip, made by Juha Christensen and KariValkama May 25 - June 7, 1986, covered the northern and easternpart of kabupaten Luwu. The third trip by Philip Campbell andKari Valkama August 20 - September 2, 1986, covered the easternpart of kabupaten Polewali Mamas a and the western part ofkabupaten Tana Toraja. The fourth trip by Juha Christensen andKari Valkama September 21 - 27, 1986, covered the southern part ofkabupaten Luwu.

The goal of the survey was to investigate the linguisticsituation in kabupatens Pinrang, Enrekang, Tana Toraja, PolewaliMamas a and Luwu in order to establish language boundaries bycomparing lexical similarity between wordlists taken in the areasconcerned. This was to complete the earlier UNHAS-SIL survey(i.e. the initial survey by Grimes and Grimes in 1982/1983) in theareas mentioned above, thus bringing the general survey of thearea to completion.

1. ROlILIBGIJISTlC IRFOIDIATlOR

The area covered by our survey belongs to five administrativeunits, kabupatens Pinrang, Enrekang, Tana Toraja, Polewali Mamasaand Luwu. In Pinrang we visited kecamatans Patampanua, Duampanuaand Suppirang. In Enrekang we visited all five kecamatans: Maiwa,Enrekang, Baraka, Anggeraja and AlIa. In Tana Toraja we visitedkecamatans Mengkendek, Makale, Sanggalangi, Sesean, Rantepao,Rindingallo, Saluputti and Bonggakaradeng. tn Polewali Mamasa wevisited kecamatans Mamas a, Sumarorong and Polewali. tn Luwu wevisited all the kecamatans except kecamatan Lifubong. See AppendixC for map of area surveyed.

The condition of the roads is basically good. Most of theroads were asphalt. In Pinrang we had some difficulties whengoing to desa Kassa and towards desa Suppirang. Those roads werepassable by motorbike only during the dry season. Kecamatan Panain kabupaten Polewali Mamas a , kecamatan Bonggakaradeng inkabupaten Tana Toraja and kecamatan Bastem in kabupaten Luwu werenot accessible by motorbike.

The area concerned iscoastal plain of Pinrang andand the coastal areas ofFarming is the livelihood ofthe most important crop.

basically mountainous, except for thethe southern part of kecamatan Maiwakecamatans Polewali, Mamasa and Luwu.most people in the area, rice beingWet field cultivation is most common.

120 TORAJA

IlITRODUCTlOR

Corn and cassava (ubi kayu) are cultivated to a lesser extent.Animal husbandry is also important in many areas.

There are over 100,000 inhabitants in the threeabove-mentioned kecamatans of Pinrang. About 98% are Muslim andabout 2% are Christian. In kabupaten Enrekang there are over130,000 inhabitants out of which about 1% are Christians and therest are Muslim. In kabupaten Tana Toraja there are about 340,000inhabitants. About 80% are Christians, 7% Muslim and 13%an~ists. In kabupaten Polewali Mamas a in kecamatans Mamasa,Pana, Sumarorong and Polewa1i there are about 130,000inhabitants. About 56% are Muslim, the majority of whom live inkecamatan Polewali, 40% are Christians, most of whom live inkecamatan Mamasa and Pana, and about 4% are an~ists. Inkabupaten Luwu there are 560,000 inhabitants, the majority ofwhich are Muslim.

2. HBTIIODOLOGY2.A. General

The goal of the survey was to determine tentative languageboundaries by comparing ,lexical similarity between wordlists takenin the area concerned.

Our definition of language ~plies mutual intelligibility,so, when we speak of two separate languages, we imply lack ofintelligibility. Even though lexicostatistics is not a sufficientmeans 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). Oyennotes: "The reason that lexicostatistical classification isinconclusive would be the same ,that affects any classification;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 facts than that, a classification remainsopen to correction as additional facts become available." (Oyen1966:35).

An additional factor that would make the languageclassification final would be intelligibility testing between allthose language communities which show lexical similarity between60 and 95 percent. This is because whereas lexical similarity isone component of linguistic similarity (together with thephonological, grammatical and semantic components) intelligibilityscores represent linguistic similarity directly, being compositemeasures of those components which determine linguistic similarity(S~ons 1979:15,57f, 67-87).

TORAJA 121

2.D. Eliciting data

During the four survey trips, 65 wordlists were elicited. 60of those wordlists and 19 wordlists from other surveys werecompared. They are listed in two matrixes: Matrix 5, Appendix A(63 wordlists) and Matrix 6, Appendix B (16 wordlists). Listselicited by the Grimeses are marked (G), lists elicited by theFribergs are marked (F), lists elicited by the Laskowskes aremarked (L), lists taken from Barr & Barr are marked (B) and a listtaken from Balai Penelitian Bahasa is marked (BPB). This makesthe total number of wordlists 79.

The wordlist we used was a 2l0-item list, which was quitesimilar to the Grimeses, Friberg and the Laskowske lists. Barrand 'Barr used a modified Swadesh 100 list and Balai Bahasa usedthe Swadesh 200 list. Out of the 210 items, 200 were also on theGrimes list, 210 were on the Friberg list and 209 were on theLaskowske list. All these lists are substantially similar to theSwadesh 200 list.

Before eliciting a wordlist, the respondent was screened toensure that he was a native speaker of the language/dialect inquestion. We permitted other local people to advise and correctthe respondent, but we required the respondent himself topronounce the words, so that uniformity of pronounciation could bemaintained for a given location. The language of elicitation wasIndonesian.

2.e. Lexical si.ilarity

All 79 wordlists were later transferred to a wordbook whereeach page contained one item in all its 79 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 aremaking synchronic comparisons instead of diachronic comparisons.Bugenhagen refers to McElhanon (1967:8), according to whom twoitems are lexically similar if there is correspondence betweenfifty percent or more of the phonemes, either as a regularcorrespondence (for the comparative method) or by phoneticsimilarity (for the inspection method). (For the discussion ofcomparative method and inspection method, see Sanders 1977:33,34.)Bugenhagen combines the comparative method with the inspectionmethod to the extent that regular correspondences are taken into

122 TORAJA

consideration. Loanwords, however, he leaves in, while in thecomparative method they are left out. So, basically we followedthe inspection method, with the addition that regularcorrespondences were also taken into consideration. The decisionswere made on a lexically similar/lexically different basisaccording to the 50% correspondence guideline.

2.D. DisqualificationsOut of the 210-item word1ist, 13 items were disqualified

because of ambiguity, confusion, lexical repetition, lack ofcorrespondence between the language of elicitation and thelanguage elicited and difficulties encountered in assigning wordsinto their lexical similarity sets. The items were 1126 "mer eka'",i139"danau", 4147"hangat '", 4194 11 ini", #95 "itu", 197 "di situ",11106 "barat" 1F149 "paman" 1152 "nenek moyang" #156 "emas. " ,kawin", i1157"jeluang", iH70 "di mana", and 11205"mandikan".

2.E. Matrix

Two matrixes containing the comparisons between the 79wordlists were then produced with the help of a computer. Thelarger one (Matrix 5, Appendix A) contains South Sulawesi Stockwordlists. The smaller one (Matrix 6, Appendix B) containsCentral Sulawesi Stock word1ists.

The larger matrix was then split into three smallermatrixes: Toraja, Luwu and Masenrempu1u matrixes (matrices 1, 2and 3, respectively). In the smaller matrixes some of theword lists were disqualified because we suspect that they do notrepresent the respective speech form. Therefore the Pattae'wordlist was disqualified because it has a Bugis bias. TheBa'atan wordlist was taken from a person who was born in theTallulembangna dialect area but later moved to the Kesu' dialectarea. Therefore it is a mixed wordlist. The Kariango wordlistwas disqualified because the quality of the elicitation wasthought to be poor. The Bungi and Maroangin wordlists also showeda Bugis bias.

3. RESULTS3.A. General

Percentages above 80 are considered to indicate one language.Percentages above 75 are considered to indicate the same subfamilyof languages. Percentages between 60 and 75 are considered toindicate the same family of languages. Percentages between 45 and60 are considered to indicate the same stock of families.Percentages between 25 and 45 are considered to indicate the same

TORAJA 123

superstock of stocks. All the wordlists of this survey belong tothe South Sulawesi Stock or the Central Sulawesi Stock. Lexicalsimilarity percentages are generally not used to differentiatebetween dialects, so we relied more on sociolinguistic factors inbreaking languages into dialects.

It is to be noted that we did not follow the percentagesblindly when separating languages from each other. We tried totake sociolinguistic factors into consideration also. It is alsoto be remembered that lexicostatistics gives only an approximationof the real language situation. To finalize the picture, thoroughfieldwork and intelligibility testing is needed. We are in no waytrying to imply that this survey report presents the final andtrue relationship between the languages concerned.

Two other languages treated in Grimes and Grimes, Rampi andLemolang, are found in the area of our survey, namely in kabupatenLuwu. We have not included these because they are so unrelated toeverything else. Lemo1ang stands as a language isolate within theSouth Sulawesi Stock. Rampi is assigned the Central SulawesiStock. We have nothing to add beyond Grimes and Grimes and theRampi survey (in this volume).

3.B. South Sulawesi Stock3.B.1. Bugi. Fa.ily

As Matrix 3 shows, this family is represented by Bugis andMalimpung wordlists. The Bugis list represents the Sidrap dialectand therefore (because of close location) some of the otherwordlists show over 60% lexical similarity with it. (See Maiwa,Pattae' and Pattinjo-Enrekang wordlists.)

3.B.2. Rorthern South Sulawesi Pa.ily3.B.2.1. Toraja Subfa.ily

This subfamily is represented by the Toraja, Mamasa, (Matrix1) and Luwu (Matrix 2) languages in our matrix. The Torajalanguage is represented by the Sa'dan, Kesu', Tallulembangna andSaluputti-Rindingallo dialects.

Duri relates to Toraja dialects with an average of 77.8%lexical similarity and to Enrekang-Pattinjo with an average of75.7%, so it could have been included in the Toraja subfamily. Butbecause of sociolinguistic factors, we included it in theMasenrempulu subfamily. This is in accordance with van der Veen,Peta Bahasa and Grimes and Grimes.

The Mamas a language is represented by the northern dialect(kecamatan Mamas a and Pana), the middle dialect (kecamatanSumarorong, desas Mappak and Simbuang in kecamatan Bonggakaradengand desa Suppirang in kecamatan Lembang) and the southern orPattae' dialect (kecamatan Polewali).

According to the Grimeses, Pattae' is a separate languagefrom Mamasa. Their only wordlist of Pattae' is from Binuang,

124 TORAJA

which is heavily influenced by Bugis. In our matrix it is 11-12%closer to Bugis than our other Pattae' wordlists. Therefore wehave reason to believe that that word list does not represent apure Pattae' dialect. Therefore we excluded that list from Matrix1. Since Pattae' relates to other Mamasa dialects with an averageof 86.7% lexical similarity, it is clearly part of the Mamasalanguage even though there are some sociolinguistic factors thatmay cause Pattae' speakers to reject materials written in thenorthern dialect. This decision is in accordance with van derVeen and Peta Bahasa.

The northern and middle dialects of Mamasa relate to Torajawith an average of 84.9% lexical similarity. It is almost as muchas the percentage between Pattae' and the two other Mamasadialects. We decided not to include Mamasa in the Toraja languagebecause of the following factors. The deviation of the percentagefigures between Toraja and Mamasa (excluding the Pattae' dialect)is higher than the deviation of percentage figures between Pattae'and Mamasa (the Mamasa average excludes the Pattae' dialect). Webelieve that this fact is the result of contact between Mamaaa andToraja which has resulted in bilingualism for those languagecommunities that are geographically close to Mamasa. For example,our Balla list (which is geographically close to Mamasa) shows anaverage of 90% lexical similarity with Mamasa (excluding thePattae' dialect), but our Bonoran list, which represents theprestigeous Kesul dialect (and which is geographically distantfrom Mamasa) shows an average of only 80,6% lexical similaritywith Mamasa (excluding the Pattae' dialect). All the Pattae'wordlists, on the contrary, show an average of 85% or more lexicalsimilarity with the Mamas a (the Mamas a average excludes thePattae' dialect).

The Luwu language is a hard one to define (see Matrix 2). Itis represented by Rongkong, Luwu Utara and Luwu Selatan dialects.(These can be divided into smaller units, like Rongkong Bawah,Rongkong Atas, Seko Lemo, northern Luwu Selatan, southern LuwuSelatan, Sabbang and Bone Bone dialects.) In the people's mindsRongkong is separate from the Luwu language. But according to ourlexcial similarity figures, Rongkong is, on the average, 88,9%lexically similar with Luwu Utara and on the average, only 82,4%lexically similar with Luwu Selatan. Luwu Utara and Luwu Selatanare on the average 85% lexically similar. So, according to thematrix, Rongkong is closer to Luwu Utara thanLuwu Utara is withLuwu Selatan. Therefore, if a split should be made, Luwu Utarashould be grouped together with Rongkong and Luwu Selatan shouldbe left alone. This split would have been against the intuitionof the population, so we did not do it.

TORAJA 125

126 TORAJA

TORAJA 127

What is clear, however, is that Luwu Utara is the central dialectand that it's Sabbang dialect (represented by our Lena wordlist)is the linguistic center for the area. It remains to be seen ifspeakers of the other dialects can understand and are willing toacquiesce to the centrality of this dialect.

Grimes and Grimes' Toala' is the same as our Luwu. Whereasthey divide the language into two dialects, Toala' and Palili', ona north-south axis (which incidentally continues north anddemarcates the Atas and Bawah dialects of the Rongkong language),we have spoken of northern and southern dialects based on aeast-west axis. Both are correct divisions in th~ south. (In thenorth this division is corre~t only if Rongkong is considered apart of Luwu, a position that Grimes and Grimes do not take.)Thus Ranteballa, Paragosi, Bonelemo and Kaili (southern andwestern (mountain) villages) form a group which is over 90%lexically similar. Gr~es and Grimes Palili' wordlist taken inPalopo. is about 96% lexically similar with our Kandoa wordlist,making it part of the Luwu Selatan dialect.

3.B.2.2. Massenrempulu SubfamilyThe Masenrempulu subfamily is represented by the

Enrekang-Pattinjo, Duri and Maiwa languages (see Matrix 3).The Enrekang-Pattinjo language is represented by the Pattinjo

and Enrekang dialects. The Guzi, Kassa, Bungi, Paku and Rampusawordlists are usually referred to by the cover term Pattinjo.They are spoken in kabupatens Pinrang and Polewali Mamasa.Enrekang-Pattinjo reportedly also has a Ranga dialect in desaRanga kecamatan Enrekang. We do not have a word list from thatdialect.

Grimeses grouped Duri, Enrekang and Maiwa into one languageand Pattinjo as a separate language. Our wordlists, however; showthat Duri, Enrekang and Maiwa are separate languages. And sincePattinjo relates at an average 84.1% lexical similarity withEnrekang, it was included in the Enrekang-Pattinjo language. Thisis in accordance with the Peta Bahasa.

The Maiwa language is represented by the Maroangin, Mataka1iand Bungin dialects. Matakali is a transitional dialect betweenEnrekang-Pattinjo and Maiwa. Maiwa is also reportedly spoken inkabupaten Sidrap in kecamatan Duapitue, desas Bulucenrana, Batu,Compong, Betao and Balawae, and in kecamatan Pancarijang in desaKulo. We do not have wordlists from those speech communities.

The Duri language seems to be uniform, without great dialectdifferences. It is close to Toraja showing an average 77.8%lexical similarity with it, compared to 75.7% lexical similaritywith Enrekang-Pattinjo. But because of sociolinguistic reasons,we have included it in the Masenrempulu subfamily. This is inaccordance with Van der Veen and Peta Bahasa.

128 TORAJA

Matrix 3 - Hasaenrempulu - 14 wordliat:••

BAROKO94 BlLAJIN95 96 CAKKE94 94 97 BARAKA

DURI LANGUAGE

74 75 75 75 RAMPUSA72 72 74 73 86 PAKU75 75 77 76 86 90 KASSA79 77 80 80 90 87 89 GUZI75 75 78 76 80 80 87 87 ENREKANG74 74 78 76 81 83 87 88 97 ENREKANG (G)74 74 75 74 79 82 82 84 83 86 MATAKALI77 77 77 77 76 80 79 79 76 78 86 BUNGIN63 64 67 65 69 74 77 71 68 70 71 69 MALIMPUNG (F) MALIMPUNG LANG.58 58 59 58 64 71 69 66 60 63 65 65 81 BUGIS (F) BUGrS LANGUAGE

ENREKANG-PATTINJO LANGUAGE

MAIWA LANGUAGE

3.C. Central Sulawesi Stock3.C.l. Mori Family3.C.l.l. Bungku subfamily

The Bungku subfamily is represented by two languges, Bungkuand Menui. Both of those wordlists are from Barr and Barr. Intheir matrix they relate to each other at 85%. In our matrix theyrelate to each other at 77%. When we compared the Barr and Barrword1ists, which are in our matrix, with each other, our resultsaveraged 8.8% lower than Barr and Barr's results. It seemsapparent that they used different criteria when making theirlexical similarity decisions.

3.C.l.1. Mori subfamilyThe Mori subfamily is represented by three languages, Mori

Bawah (also called East Mori) , Mori Atas (also called West Mori)and Padoe (also called South Mori).

Mori has five dialects (according to Ibu Pendeta AyubLakaoni): Molongkuni (our Babopada), Toroda (our Beteleme),Topimp0, Tobatu and Ngusungbatu. We had no way of verifying thatinformation. The dialect spoken in Soroako and Nuha is alsocalled the Soroako dialect. Babopada is included in the MoriBawah language although it is less than 80% lexically similar withthe other dialects. This is because the Babopada word1ist wastaken outside of the main area of the dialect and we have only onewordlist, which may contain errors. We think it is safer to giveit a dialect status rather than a language status in this initialstage.

The Kawatak wordlist is a Karonsie dialect list taken in theKawatak village. It is transitional between Mori Bawah and Padoe.It was included in the Padoe language.

TORAJA 129

The Koropansu list represents the Tambe'e dialect of the MoriAtas language.

J.C.2. Pamona FamilyThe Pamona Family is represented only by the Pamona Tomoni

dialect. One of the wordlists was taken by the Grimeses and theother one was taken by us. They should represent differentdialects, but they are quite close. During the survey we weretold that the Pamona Tomoni dialect is very homogenous. PamonaTomoni is only 45.5% lexically similar with the Central SulawesiStock lists of our matrix, so it may be that it should be regardedas a separate Stock.

J.C.J. Tolaki FamilyThe Tolaki Family is represented by only the Tolaki language.

That list is taken from a Balai Penelitian Bahasa book. They didnot say from which village their lists were taken. The onlyreason we put it into our matrix was because we wanted to know howclose it is to the neighbouring Bungku and Mori subfamilies. Itis 53.3% lexically similar with the South Sulawesi Stock. Sincewe do not know how close the other Southeast Sulawesi languagesare with the Central Sulawesi Stock, we do not know if it reallybelongs to Central Sulawesi Stock or not.

Matrix 4 - Central Sulawesi Stock - 16 wordlists

130 TORATA

IMENUI (B) MENUI LANGUAGE77rBUNGKU (B) BUNGKU LANGUAGE55 58 BABOPADA59 64 80 BETELEME62 68 79 92 MORIBAWAH (B) MORI BAWAH LANGUAGE64 68 76 90 93 NURA63 68 76 91 92 99 SOROAKO59 62 77 82 80 86 87 KAWATAK55 60 75 78 78 79 80 85 WAWANDOLA (G) PADOE LANGUAGE57 60 76 77 76 80 80 84 94 PABETA59 61 76 77 76 80 80 84 94 96 KAWATA·53 56 79 79 75 75 76 80 79 78 80 KOROPANSU MORI ATAS LANGUAGE56 60 79 75 79 76 75 77 80 80 80 82 MORIATAS (B)55 59 53 48 54 50 51 55 57 58 56 57 6llTOLAKI (BPB) TOLAKI LANG.45 42 43 45 48 44 44 44 45 44 44 45 51 43 MANGKUTANA PAMONA44 41 42 44 47 44 45 45 44 44 43 46 48 42 94 MALEKU (G) LANG.

There are still several questions that need more study:1. Why the percentages are so different between the Barr and Barrmatrix and our matrix? 2. Does Kawatak belong to Mori Bawah orPadoe? 3. Is Babopada a dialect of Mori Bawah or its ownlanguage? 4. Does Pamona belong to the Central Sulawesi Stock orto another stock? 5. Does Tolaki belong to the Central SulawesiStock or to a Southeast Sulawesi Stock.

_S. BIBLIOGIlAPIlY

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.

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

Kantor Statistik Ujung Pandang. 1984. Enrekang Dalam Angka

---- 1984. Luwu Dalam Angka.

---- 1984. Pinrang Dalam Angka.

---- 1984. Polewali Mamasa Dalam Angka.

---- 1984. Tana Toraja Dalam Angka.

Laskowske, Thomas V. and Kathryn B. Laskowske, in this volume.UNHAS-SIL. Sociolinguistic Survey. Seko Area.

Loving, Richard, ed. 1977. Language Variation and SurveyTechniques. Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, Vol.21.

McElhanon, K. 1967. Preliminary Observations on Huon PeninsulaLanguages. In Oceanic Linguistics 6:1-45.

Pelenkahu, R. A. eds. 1974. Peta Bahasa Sulawesi Selatan. UjungPandang: Lembaga Bahasa National Cabang Ill.

Salombe, C., Don Barr and Sharon Barr. 1979. Languages ofCentral Sulawesi. Hasanuddin University. Ujung Pandang.

TORAJA 131

4. llESIDUE

132 TORAJA

Sanders, Arden G. 1977. ~uidelines for Conducting aLexicostatistic Survey in papua New Guinea. In Loving, ed.1977.

Simons, Gary F. 1977. Tables of significance forlexicostatistics. In Loving, ed. 1977.

Simons, Gary F. 1979. Language Variation and Limits toCommunication. Technical Report No.3. Ithaca: CornellUniversity.

Smith, Kenneth D., ed. 1982. A Compendium of Articles Relatingto the Survey of Sabah Languages. Pre-publication copy.Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Veen, H. van der. 1929. Nota Betreffende de grenzen van deSa1dansche taalgroep en bet aanverwante taalgebied.Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde,69:58-97.

APPUDlCES

TORAJA

A. Matrix "5- South Sulawesi Stock

- 63 wordlists

NORTJ-IERN SOUTH SULAWESI FANlt,Y

133

B. Hatru 6 - Central Sulawesi Stock - 16 vordlist8

MORlBAWAHLANGUAGE

PADOELANGUAGE

..soUTH SULAWE SJ MAP.

BUNGKUSUBFAMILY

ABOPADA59 64 80 BETELEME62 68 79 92 MORlBAWAH (B)64 68 76 90 93 NUHA63 68 76 91 92 99 SOROAKO59 62 77 82 80 86 87 KAWATAK55 60 75 78 78 79 80 85 WAWANDOLA (G)57 60 76 77 76 80 80 84 94 PABETA59 61 76 77 76 80 80 84 94 96 KAWAT53 56 79 79 75 75 76 80 79 78 80 KOROPANSU

6 7 7 80 80 80 82 T5 50 51 55 57 58 56 7 61 TOLAKl BPB TOLAIC

45 42 43 45 48 44 44 44 45 44 44 45 51 43 MANGKUTANA PAMONA44 41 42 44 47 44 45 45 44 44 43 46 48 42 94 MALEKU (G)

134 TORAJA

ell "p. of are•• urveyedHap 1 - RorthctIIltral South Sul_.i Hap

TORAJA 135

Hap 2 - Rortheastern South Sulawesi Hap

136 TORAJA