Phonology of Malay Language in Karimun Regency, Riau Islands

The Malay language that is spoken in Karimun Regency is a unique and diverse language. The uniqueness and diversity of the Malay language lies in phonology. The purpose of this study is to analyze the phonological variations and phonological differences of the Malay language in Karimun Regency, Riau Islands. The focused places of this study are located in three districts, namely Karimun District, West-Kundur District and Moro District. This study uses a dialect geography approach and qualitative descriptive. The data were collected by using the listening that is followed by simak libat cakap method, recording, and taking notes technique. The results showed that the Karimun Malay language has phonological variations in the form of vowel and consonant variations. Phonological variations happen due to geographic locations between different observation areas and they are obliviously limited to other regions. The phonological differences of the Karimun Malay language in the three observation places are categorized in speech difference. The results of data calculated is analyzed the phonological dialectometric method of Karimun Malay language in the three observation places is 4-7% in percentage.

From Jones to Gabelentz

Chapter 17 illustrates the nineteenth-century fate of the language / dialect distinction, during and after the establishment of linguistics as an autonomous field of study. Since at this stage the study of language roughly coincided with historical-comparative grammar, it is no surprise that the language-historical interpretation prevailed. In the 1870s, the spatial conception was foregrounded when dialect geography emerged. Other criteria lived on, too, especially mutual intelligibility and the Aristotelian interpretation. In the first half of the nineteenth century, only a few scholars bothered to discuss the conceptual pair at length, notable among them the now forgotten comparative linguist Albert Giese. In the 1860s, suspicion about the validity of the language / dialect contrast grew, perceptible in the work of August Schleicher and the neogrammarians, but not to such an extent that it was extensively questioned. Perhaps linguists were afraid that this debate would mean the premature end of their young discipline.

Recent developments in Latvian dialectology

Trumpa, Edmunds. 2012. Latviešu ģeolingvistikas etīdes [Studies in Latvian Dialect Geography]. Rīga: Zinātne. ISBN 978–9984–879–34–5.Sarkanis, Alberts. 2013. Latviešu valodas dialektu atlants. Fonētika. Apraksts, kartes un to komentāri [Latvian Dialect Atlas. Phonetics. Description, Maps and Commentaries]. Rīga: LU Latviešu valodas institūts. ISBN: 978–9984–742–68–7 The last year saw the appearance of two significant contributions to the study of Latvian dialects. These are the phonology part of the Latvian Dialect Atlas prepared by Alberts Sarkanis (2013) and Latviešu ģeolingvistikas etīdes by Edmunds (Edmundas) Trumpa (2012a). The two are very different in their aims and methods, even though both deal with phonetic isoglosses of traditional rural dialects. In fact, traditional rural dialects are still considered as the only object of research by Latvian dialectologists in spite of the considerable changes to the field elsewhere, marked by the breakdown of the barriers between dialectology and sociolinguistics (see e.g. Chambers & Trudgill 2004 and Auer & Schmidt 2010). However, of the two reviewed books, Trumpa (2012a) seems to be closer to the modern understanding of research into language and space, and therefore his work can be seen as a promise of changes in Latvian dialectology, whereas Sarkanis (2013) almost entirely belongs to the traditional approach. Nevertheless, in the context of Trumpa’s rather innovative book, Sarkanis’ Phonological Atlas serves as a summary of achievements from the previous stage.