Typology of Personal Pronouns in Austronesian Languages in Indonesia

This study discusses the forms and variations in the use of personal pronouns by STKIP students in Banjarmasin. The purpose of this study is to describe the forms and variations in the use personal pronouns by STKIP students in Banjarmasin. This research is a qualitative descriptive study. The data collection is obtained by observation techniques, see, and record. Research data are in the form the speech used by STKIP students in Banjarmasin, Department of PBSID (Local or Indonesian Language and Literature Education). The results show that the using personal pronouns are three forms, namely the first person, second person, and third person. Based on the type of reference personal pronoun used by STKIP students in Banjarmasin are singular and plural pronoun.When it is viewed from the morphological distribution, there are a full form and a short form. The short forms are usually used in proclitic (appears before its host) and also enclitic (appear after its host). Personal pronouns used by the students in their speech are varied. Although they are in Banjar, they do not only use personal pronouns in Banjar language, a part of the students use the first person singular pronoun gue ‘aku’. Personal pronouns in Banjar language used by the STKIP students in Banjarmasin are the first person singular pronoun, ulun, unda, sorang, saurang and aku. First person singular pronoun aku has some variations –ku and ku- that are bound morpheme. First person plural is kami and kita. The second person pronouns are pian, ikam, nyawa, and kamu. Meanwhile, the third person singular pronouns are Inya and Sidin. The third person plural pronoun is bubuhannya. The use of personal pronouns by STKIP students in Banjarmasin are dominantly consist of five speech components only that are based on the situation, the partner, the intent, the content of the message, and how the speaker tells the speech.

Penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk mendeskripsikan penanda kata ganti orang dalam bahasa Ternate. Sebagai bahasa etnik, bahasa Ternate memiliki keunikan tersendiri. Bahasa Ternate memiliki keunikan tata bahasa yang berbeda dengan bahasa lainnya. Dengan menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif, penelitian ini berhasil mengungkapkan bahwa dalam bahasa Ternate terdapat bentuk-bentuk kata ganti orang, yaitu fajaru, fangare, ngori, ngom, ngone, ngon, ngana, una, mina, dan ana yang merupakan morfem bebas sehingga dalam kalimat dapat berdiri sendiri dan dalam kalimat aktif mengisi fungsi subjek (S). Selain itu, dalam bahasa ini juga terdapat bentuk penanda kata ganti orang yang kedudukannya dalam tuturan maupun secara gramatika tidak dapat berdiri sendiri. Meskipun demikian, bentuk terikat ini memiliki arti leksial, yaitu sebagai penanda kata ganti orang. Bentuk-bentuk penanda kata ganti orang BT adalah: to- (penanda pronomina persona pertama tunggal), mi- (penanda pronomina persona pertama jamak eksklusif), si- (penanda pronomina persona pertama jamak inklusif), no- (penanda pronomina persona kedua tunggal), ni- (penanda pronomina persona kedua jamak), o- (penanda pronomina persona ketiga tunggal), dan i- (penanda pronomina persona ketiga jamak).

Purpose The literature suggests that persons with TBI rely on other people to maintain the flow of a conversation. This study tested whether use of personal pronouns by persons with TBI and their conversational partners can characterize their exchanges and, in addition, suggest factors that affect this type of discourse. Method Using second person pronouns (e.g. “you”) in direct questions supports the flow of conversation by requiring a response, which is often constructed using a first person pronoun (e.g. “I”, “me”, “my”). Counts of first person (e.g. “I”) and second person (e.g. “you”) pronouns were obtained from archived transcripts of conversations. Primary analyses were based on dyadic conversations between a single male investigator and 33 persons with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 49 neurotypical individuals. Ancillary analyses included an additional 21 persons with TBI who interacted with a second investigator. Results Overall, pronoun use reflected the interactive nature of conversations: more frequent use of second person pronouns (e.g. “you”) by the investigator was strongly correlated with more frequent use of first person singular pronouns (e.g. “I”) by the participant. In particular, the investigator used second person pronouns more frequently when interacting with persons with TBI than with neurotypical individuals. Accordingly, persons with TBI used first person pronouns (e.g. “I”) reliably more than neurotypical individuals. Other participant characteristics such as level of education also affected use of first person pronouns. Conclusions Pronoun use provides a useful characterization of discourse performance and how conversations involving persons with TBI may differ with respect to who is sustaining the conversation, in part by asking questions. In addition, these findings suggest a possible target for treatment.

Indonesia has many cultures. One look through the diversity of Indonesian culture, which is one of the region is Maros, South Sulawesi. In addition, Indonesia is also renowned as one of the nation that has a high enough rank of complexity. Indonesian complexity appears in profile in Indonesian language. This article will look at the diversity of Indonesian based on ancient human migration patterns in the archipelago. In addition, it will also be reviewed on the role of the only language that has managed to unite the cultural diversity of ethnicity, and languages in Indonesia. The existence of a national language in Indonesia only because of the already established agreements among Indonesian people to their social ties. The agreement occurred cumulatively. Many factors affect the diversity of languages that exist in Indonesia. Among the factors that generate the linguistic diversity is a factor of two ancient human migration, the migration of Austronesian and Australo-Melanesian. Two current distribution of the prehistoric human remains influential in the formation of culture and language in the archipelago until now. All indigenous languages in Indonesia generated from two groups of ancient languages, the Austronesian language family and the Papuan languages family. Austronesian language family moved in the archipelago around 4,000 years ago. Meanwhile, Papuan language families move in the archipelago since 40,000 years ago. Thus it can be said that the diversity of language in contemporary Indonesia should be associated with the migration factor and several other factors. Other factors, among others, such as migration, the geography of the archipelago with many islands and mountains, and social factors and communication. Seeing these things, it can also noted that Indonesia has a very diverse languages. Unlike delivered Indonesia has only two varieties in language, namely formal and non-formal varieties. It would be flawed if it still considers Indonesian has only two varieties from the 250 speakers.

This study is concerned with three aspects of grammatical equivalence occurring in translation, namely, person, tense and voice. In particular, this study tries to answer some questions related to the notion of grammatical equivalence in English-Bahasa Indonesia translation related to the categories of person (pronoun), tenses, and voice. This study is a descriptive qualitative one which tries to describe and delineate the phenomenon of translation naturally without the intervention of an experiment or an artificially contrived treatment. This kind of study requires a holistic perspective of there search area in order to gather as much information as possible and to avoid any manipulation or interference in the study context. The results of the study have shown the followings. Firstly, most of the English pronouns with person reference are translated by the personal pronouns in Bahasa Indonesia, some are not translated by the personal pronouns in Bahasa Indonesia since their meaning are considered known from their context, and some other are not translated by personal pronouns but rather by repeating then our reference. Secondly, the category of tense in Englis his presented morphologically by changing the verb forms whereas in Bahasa Indonesia it is presented lexically by adding words indicating the time relation of the event presented by the verb. Thirdly, both English and Bahasa Indonesia have the category of voice but they do not always use this category with the same frequency. The active forms in English are not always translated into active forms in Bahasa Indonesia, and vice versa.

This study is concerned with three aspects of grammatical equivalence occurring in translation, namely, person, tense and voice. In particular, this study tries to answer some questions related to the notion of grammatical equivalence in English-Bahasa Indonesia translation related to the categories of person (pronoun), tenses, and voice. This study is a descriptive qualitative one which tries to describe and delineate the phenomenon of translation naturally without the intervention of an experiment or an artificially contrived treatment. This kind of study requires a holistic perspective of there search area in order to gather as much information as possible and to avoid any manipulation or interference in the study context. The results of the study have shown the followings. Firstly, most of the English pronouns with person reference are translated by the personal pronouns in Bahasa Indonesia, some are not translated by the personal pronouns in Bahasa Indonesia since their meaning are considered known from their context, and some other are not translated by personal pronouns but rather by repeating then our reference. Secondly, the category of tense in Englis his presented morphologically by changing the verb forms whereas in Bahasa Indonesia it is presented lexically by adding words indicating the time relation of the event presented by the verb. Thirdly, both English and Bahasa Indonesia have the category of voice but they do not always use this category with the same frequency. The active forms in English are not always translated into active forms in Bahasa Indonesia, and vice versa.

Transnational families in Indonesia currently still have many difficulties in developing and creating an ideology of language use that they implement in their families, with a variety of languages to maintain their family's ethnic identity. This research explores three research questions, as follows. (1) How did parents perceive the roles of various languages in shaping their children's future? (2) What languages were used in the family? This research finds the choice of language use within the context of Indonesian transnational families with different ethnic backgrounds. Employing a qualitative approach with a case study design (Yin, 2014), this study employs 2 participants, a woman, and her mother, both of them are scholarship awardees, who negotiate language ideologies, practices, and policies within their families among linguistic diversity and transnational mobility. Through thematic analysis (Saldana, 2012) of data collection from semi-structured interviews and observation, revealed several initial, open, and axial codes. This finding of this research reveals 1). The differences ideology between two generation. 2). The family's efforts to balance maintaining English and Bahasa Indonesia language. The implication of this study is made for the language policy maker and other transnational parent. In conclusion, this study highlights the complexities of language use in transnational families and demonstrates that these families face challenges and opportunities in creating an environment that supports language learning.

(1967). Linguistics and the prehistory of the South‐Western pacific. The Journal of Pacific History: Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 25-38.

Typical Features of Austronesian Languages in Central/Eastern Indonesia1 Marian Klamer Abstract This paper presents a list of typical properties of the languages of Central/Eastern (C/E) Indonesia, covering roughly the geographical area between Lombok and Papua. It focuses on those characteristics that set apart the C/E Indonesian languages from the Austronesian languages toward the west. A synthesis of recently published data on C/E Indonesian languages, the present paper provides an updated typological window on an area that is relatively under-represented in Austronesian research. It is argued that a typological characterization of a linguistic area like this can be used as a heuristic tool in comparative research. Because the area under consideration is geographically defined, the data do not have any direct bearing on issues of genetic subgrouping. Nevertheless, because all but one of the features listed here are those of Austronesian languages, they may be used to formulate hypotheses about the higher-order genetic affiliation of a language whose affiliation to a particular family (e.g., whether Austronesian or not) is yet uncertain. This is especially relevant for C/E Indonesia as a contact zone of languages with different (or unknown) genetic affiliations. How the list of typological features may be used to formulate specific hypotheses about contact-induced linguistic change is illustrated. 1. Introduction. This paper presents an initial typological characterization of the languages of the Central/Eastern (C/E) Indonesian region, roughly covering the geographical area east of Lombok and west of Papua. The core sample of languages referred to in this paper are the Austronesian languages Muna (Sulawesi, Van den Berg 1989), Tukang Besi (Sulawesi, Donohue 1999), Bima (Owens 2000), Kéo (Flores, Baird 2002), Kambera (Sumba, Klamer [End Page 363] 1998a), Buru (Moluccas, Grimes 1991), Alune (Moluccas, Florey 2001), Leti (Moluccas, east of Timor, Van Engelenhoven 1995), Teun, Nila, and Serua (Moluccas, NE of Timor, Van Engelenhoven, to appear), Fehan Tetun (Timor, Van Klinken 1999), Taba (Halmahera, Bowden 2001), and Biak (N of the Bird's Head, Steinhauer, to appear). The locations where these languages are spoken are indicated on the map in figure 1. There are several ways in which an overview such as this may be useful for Austronesian linguistic research. First, because it is a synthesis of data on C/E Indonesian languages that have become available in the past decade, it presents an updated typological window on C/E Indonesian languages. Second, existing typological characterizations of Austronesian incorporate either the characteristics of Western Austronesian and Oceanic languages (e.g., Clark 1990, Tryon 1995), or of the Austronesian languages in Papua and Papua New Guinea (e.g., Voorhoeve 1994, Ross 1996, Foley 1998). The typical characteristics of C/E Indonesian languages do not feature in these overviews. The list of features presented here may be used to fill this gap in our typological picture of Austronesian languages. Third, a typological overview of a linguistic area can be used as a heuristic tool in comparative research. Traditionally, most of the comparative research in Austronesian linguistics has a diachronic orientation: it aims at the establishment of genetic Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Location of Core Sample of Languages Discussed in this Paper [End Page 364] relations between languages, and the reconstruction of protoforms. This paper, however, takes a synchronic approach to comparative research by making typological and areal comparisons. In this context, it is important to point out that synchronic and diachronic comparison are mutually dependent rather than competitive approaches. For example, although genetic relationships are established by the classical comparative method, it is also well known that "the comparative method is not a heuristic: ... when applied to vocabulary, it does not demonstrate relatedness, but simply assumes relatedness and proceeds to describe the relationships between the daughter languages" (Nichols 1996:40, emphasis mine). The classical comparative method, then, is a means to demonstrate an already existing hypothesis of genetic relationship through cognate paradigms of grammatical morphemes and sets of cognate lexical items (cf. Thomason and Kaufman 1988:201-202, Ross 1996). In other words, before the comparative method can be applied to unknown or unclassified languages, we must have a way to come to an...

The central topic of this thesis is the meaning and use of impersonally interpreted personal pronouns. In particular, I focus on the impersonal use of first and second person singular pronouns, in which these expressions are interpreted like dedicated impersonal pronouns. That is, they are used to express rules, norms, regulations, and other generalizations about people in general. This is surprising since first and second person singular pronouns are predominantly used to refer to unique, specific individuals, i.e. the speaker and the addressee, respectively. The main aim of this thesis is, therefore, to examine the semantic and pragmatic aspects connected to the impersonal uses, to give an account of how these uses come to be interpreted like dedicated impersonal pronouns, and to address the connection between the impersonal use and the predominant referential use. Even though the impersonal use of second person singular pronouns is cross-linguistically pervasive, the phenomenon is discussed by using the example of German. German is the ideal object language for this investigation since it provides the full observable paradigm: impersonally used first person singular `ich' (Engl. `I') and second person singular `du' (Engl. `you'), and the dedicated impersonal pronoun `man' (Engl. `one'). However, discussions on impersonally used second person singular pronouns in English, Spanish, and Dutch are drawn on, as well. The structure of the thesis is as follows. In Chapter 1, I provide a detailed discussion of the German data, and dismiss an analysis of the impersonal use that, at first glance, seems to be intuitively appealing. A purely semantic account of the data that aims to capture the semantics of singular personal pronouns in their impersonal and referential use is proposed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 discusses various aspects of the intensional sentential contexts of impersonally interpreted personal pronouns, and provides a semantic analysis in the framework of possible worlds semantics. And lastly, in Chapter 4, I dismiss the account that was built up from the results of Chapter 2 and 3, and propose a new, pragmatically motivated account for the meaning of impersonal uses.

Personal pronouns in communication plays a significant role. Proper use of personal pronouns, communication can proceed smoothly. Misuse of personal pronouns, or failure of communication will be blocked, or even make the communication between two sides break up. Therefore, understanding the language of the two personal pronouns is very important. This study analyzes the Chinese and India and usage of the classification of personal pronouns. Conclusion of the study hope to promote cross-cultural language communication, in particular, help to learn Chinese or learn Bahasa Indonesia in different occasions to use the correct pronouns. The results: (1) Chinese and Bahasa first person pronoun "I" have in common is in the sentence can be a subject and attribute; (2) Bahasa first person pronoun "aku" can not be used in some situations such as: official occasions, and older than themselves, respect for people or strangers or people who speak; (3) Chinese third-person plural pronouns, written language, "they" said that men and women is not the same guy, same use of Bahasa Indonesia kami; (4) Bahasa Indonesia are changes in the form of personal pronouns, while the Chinese personal pronouns do not; (5) the third person pronoun to differentiate between Chinese men and women, and things, but Bahasa Indonesia is no difference between the third person pronoun gender and things; (6) Bahasa Indonesia the personal pronoun is not gender distinction.

Personal and demonstrative pronouns ('I,’ ‘you,’ ‘s/he,’ ‘we,’ the plural 'you,’ ‘they,’ ‘this’ and ‘these’) are notorious for challenging any theory of natural language. Singular pronouns have received much attention from linguists and philosophers alike during the last three decades. Plural pronouns, on the other hand, have been neglected, especially by philosophers. I want to fill this gap and suggest accounts of ‘we,’ the plural ‘you,’ and ‘they.'Intuitively, singular and plural personal pronouns are ‘counterparts.' Any account of personal pronouns should make sense of this intuition. However, the latter is not very sophisticated and, as we move along, it will be reexamined and relativized. As we shall see, plural pronouns are much more than mere counterparts of the familiar singular ones. It is well known that third person singular pronouns have puzzling behaviors, acting as co-referential terms, bound variables, or unbound anaphora. But co-reference, binding, and unbound anaphora are not confined to the usual examples and extend, in a way, to plural pronouns. My discussion of the latter is partly motivated by this particular behavior.

The person and number morphemes in personal pronouns and nominal / verbal agreement affixes in Turkish are claimed to form portmanteau morphs in the current literature. That is to say, in several analyses, these morphemes are not represented by different affixes or zero morphs; rather, single morphs stand for both of them. For instance, the personal pronoun o(n) is referred to be “the third person singular pronoun”. Similarly, the bound morpheme /-(I)m/ is referred to be “the first person singular suffix” (Lewis 1967; Underhill 1976; Korkmaz 1992; van Schaaik 1996; Kornfilt 1997; Göksel & Kerslake 2011; Çiçekler 2016; Çakır 2022, e.g.). This analysis, however, leads to double number marking in some cases, which is rather problematic. For instance, when the plural suffix /-lAr/ is added to the third person singular pronoun o(n), these two morphs indicate both singularity and plurality. For this reason, the present study asserts that person and number morphemes do not always form portmanteau morphs in Turkish. Rather, in some cases, the person morphemes are phonologically realized while the number morphemes are added on them in the form of zero morphs. As a matter of fact, Turkish makes use of three different strategies while marking person and number: (1) forming a portmanteau morph, (2) using a zero morph and (3) suffixation. The study demonstrates how and when these strategies are applied in Turkish. The analysis presented here solves the problem of double number marking in personal pronouns and nominal / verbal agreement markers.

Indonesian Language has two positions, namely as the national language and the language of the State. In his position as the national language, Indonesian Language serves as a symbol of national pride, a symbol of national identity and as a means of communication between peoples, inter-region and intertribe. Meanwhile, as the language of the state serves as the language of instruction in educational institutions, official state language, national cultureof developer tools, science and technology. The Political Language Seminar in 2000 decided that the position of regional languages serve as a symbol of regional pride, regional identity and local community relations. The presence of Indonesian and regional languages at the present time has begun to erode in the presence of a foreign language. At least, the language users are no longer using language appropriate to the place and the circumstances. Sometimes in a formal situation, people are using foreign languages or regional languages, although the situation is demanding to use Indonesian. The same thing happened in the context of education in Banten province, the vast majority of students and educators in the teaching and learning process in the classroom often use or mix the language with the local language in Indonesian or foreign language. One of the factors that caused the decline in the vitality of Indonesian Language in society and in educational institutions is the linguistic competence of the speakers, thus when doing communication, they mix or even leave Indonesian Language.

In the previous chapter, we talked about languages of eastern Asia; but there is one family spoken in the far southeast of Asia and in Oceania that we have not touched on so far. This family – the Austronesian family – is the subject of this chapter. Although most geographic definitions of Oceania include Australia and Papua New Guinea but not Indonesia, in accordance with our principle of dividing the world into geo-linguistic rather than purely geographical zones, we will defer the discussion of languages spoken in Australia and Papua New Guinea till the next chapter, while languages of Indonesia will be discussed here. A more precise definition of the Austronesian realm is given in the following section. The existence of the Austronesian family, although not the full extent of it, was first recognized as early as 1706 when Adriaan (Hadrian) Reland, a Dutch scholar, cartographer and philologist, published a work titled Dissertatio de linguis insularum quarundam orientalum , in which he noted similarities between Philippine languages, Indonesian and Malagasy, as well as Polynesian languages, such as Futuna, based on word lists collected as early as 1616 by Reland's compatriots, explorers Jacob Le Maire and Willem Schouten (on Dutch explorations in the Austronesian realm, see also Chapter 1). But the first researcher to extensively explore Austronesian languages using the comparative method was a German scholar Otto Dempwolff (1871–1938). In the 1920s and 1930s he was able to reconstruct Proto-Austronesian based on the many languages spoken on the islands of Southeast Asia and in the Pacific Ocean. Today, the Austronesian family is on a par with Bantu, Indo-European and Semitic language families as one of the best-established ancient language families.