A note on cultural vocabulary in the Moluccan Islands

Abstract

In recent years M. A. Chlenov has played a unique and important role in Austronesian linguistics. In his writings (1973,1976) he has made available some of the results and data of his extensive field work in East Indonesia. His stimulating article (1980) represents still an other contribution reflecting a familiarity with a number of diverse languages as well as a deep humanistic concern with extracting relevant conclusions from such a diversity. It is certainly not the intention of this brief note to discourage these efforts or to disparage such a wide knowledge. On the contrary, Dr. Chlenov's work remains of permanent importance in Moluccan linguistic studies. Nonetheless, it is appro priate to comment on the procedure and some of the examples in his most recent article. Consideration of this procedure may benefit our attempts at reconstructing proto-languages and discovering the outlines of ancient cultures. There is an implicit methodology employed by Chlenov in sepa rating Austronesian from non Austronesian vocabulary. Confronted by a large amount of data, apparently his first step was to group seemingly related words together. There followed a search for possible cognates in other languages and in reconstructed proto-languages. Thus, all the entries which are provided with a Proto-Austronesian pedigree are considered inherited reflexes when there is no evident borrowing. Other words are either reflexes of a more recent Austronesian proto language (Proto-Oceanic, etc.) or pre-Austronesian ? again when they are not apparent loanwords. Based on this categorization, cal culations comparing the proportion of Austronesian and non Austronesian vocabulary items are possible. Chlenov's lexicostatistical orientation is obvious in this approach, if we assume that lexicostatistics involves procedures of applying statistics to the genetic comparison of the lexicon ... (Dyen 1975: 137). Preliminary, prima facie allocations of a large number of data precede a comparison with other languages, in this case including the proto-languages. Cognates are sorted from non-cognates and cal culations begin. Certainly such a procedure is of value when ap proaching a great deal of still disorganized information. Working hypotheses can be arrived at so that the process of theorizing and testing can continue. It is important, however, to apply such a poten tially powerful procedure with great rigor. Each step must be carefully controlled. Setting aside the problems which are inherent in initial allocations and groupings of data, such as the possibility of intimate borrowing, we are confronted with the serious problem of searching out Proto