Article published In:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages: Online-First Articles

‘It runs in the family’

Reconstructing the kinship terminology of Tugu Creole Portuguese

| The National University of Malaysia
| Macau University of Science and Technology
The reconstruction of the kinship terminology of the now-extinct Tugu Creole Portuguese (TCP) results from the triangulation between TCP’s available kinship terminology, the complete mapping for Malacca Creole Portuguese (MCP), and the terminology used currently by the Tugu community, which experienced a language shift towards Indonesian Malay and Betawi Malay. By examining the Tugu Village community in Jakarta, Indonesia, this paper adds more evidence for the existence of parallel kinship structures within one community and establishes linguistic and anthropological evidence for markers of inclusion and distinction among Jakarta’s ethnic groups. Thus, the Malay variety spoken in Tugu (TuM) possesses sociohistorical and linguistic elements that distinguish the community from other local communities, together with elements that bind the community to other Asian-Portuguese creole communities.
Keywords: Tugu Creole Portuguese, kinship, linguistics, anthropology, creolistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Historical background
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Parentage
    • 4.2Offspring
    • 4.3Siblings
    • 4.4Grandparental terms
    • 4.5Of uncles, aunties, nephews, and cousins
    • 4.6In-laws
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00127.tan
References (111)
References
Abdurachman, Paramita R. 2008. Bunga angin portugis di Nusantara: Jejak-jejak kebudayaan portugis di Indonesia. Jakarta: LIPI Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Nicholas Justin. 1989. The evolution of kinship terminologies. Lingua 771. 173–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alpher, Barry. 2013. Desertification of an Arandic dialect. In P. McConvell, I. Keen & R. Hendery (eds.), Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, 187–191. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Alves, Herculano. 2006. A Bíblia de João Ferreira Annes d’Almeida. Revista Lusófona de Ciência das Religiões 5(9/10). 289–302.Google Scholar
Ananta, Aris, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, M. Sairi Hasbullah, Nur Budi Handayani, & Agus Pramono. 2015. Demography of Indonesia’s ethnicity. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avram, Andrei A. 2013. The Dutch lexical contribution to three Asian Portuguese creoles. Papia: Revista Brasileira de Estudos do Contato Linguístico 23(1). 51–74.Google Scholar
Bakker, Dik, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Pamela Brown, Dmitry Egorov, Robert Mailhammer, Anthony Grant, & Eric W. Holman. (2009). Adding typology to lexicostatistics: A combined approach to language classification. Linguistic Typology 13(1). 169–181.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip. 1990. Introduction: The comparative method. In P. Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, 1–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banks, David J. 1974. Malay kinship terms and Morgan’s Malayan terminology: The complexity of simplicity. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 130(1). 44–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan N. 2018. Malacca Portuguese in the 19th century: Evidence of a wider lectal range? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 33(2). 249–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baxter, Alan N. & Patrick de Silva. 2004. A dictionary of Kristang. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Baxter, Alan N., & Hugo C. Cardoso. 2022. The ‘Panton Portugees’ of the Lisbon manuscript. In Ivo Castro, Hugo C. Cardoso, Alan Baxter, Alexander Adelaar, & Gijs Koster (eds.), Livro de Pantuns: um Manuscrito Asiático do Museo Nacional de Arqueologia, Lisboa/Book of Pantuns: an Asian Manuscript of the National Museum of Archeology (pp. 115–129). Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional.Google Scholar
Benítez-Torres, Carlos M., & Anthony P. Grant. 2017. On the origin of some Northern Songhay mixed languages. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 32(2). 263–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergsland, Knut, & Hans Vogt. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3(2). 115–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borges, Robert. 2013. Linguistic archaeology, kinship terms, and language contact in Suriname. Anthropological Linguistics 55(1). 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, John. 2011. The Luso-Asians and other Eurasians: Their domestic and diasporic identities. In Laura Jarnagin (ed.), Portuguese and Luso-Asian legacies in Southeast Asia, 1511–2011: The making of the Luso-Asian world, intricacies of engagement, 131–154. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Cardoso, Hugo C., Alan N. Baxter, & Mário Pinharanda Nunes (eds.). 2012. Ibero-Asian Creoles: Comparative perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castles, Lance. 1967. The ethnic profile of Djakarta. Indonesia 31. 153–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaer, Abdul. 2012. Folklor Betawi: Kebudayaan dan kehidupan Orang Betawi. Depok: Masup Jakarta.Google Scholar
Choudhury, Manilata. 2014. The Mardijkers of Batavia: Construction of a colonial identity (1619–1650). Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 751. 901–910.Google Scholar
Dalgado, Sebastião Rodolfo. 1919–1921. Glossário luso-asiático. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade.Google Scholar
Daus, Ronald. 1989. Portuguese Eurasian communities in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
De Sousa, Silvio Moreira, & Tan Raan Hann. (2022). ‘My brother from another mother’: Mapping the kinship terminology of Malacca Creole Portuguese. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 37(2). 247–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dousset, Laurent. 2012. Understanding human relations (kinship systems). In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 209–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1956. The Ngaju-Dayak ‘Old Speech Stratum.’ Language 321. 83–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embleton, Sheila M. 1985. Lexicostatistics applied to the Germanic, Romance, and Wakashan families. Word 36(1). 37–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Estaji, Azam. 2015–2016. A diachronic study of kinship terms in Persian. Journal of Linguistics and Khorasan Dialects Biannual 7(2). 1–3.Google Scholar
Ganap, Victor. 2011. Kroncong Toegoe. Yogyakarta: Badan Penelitian ISI Yogyakarta.Google Scholar
Gilroy, Paul. 2000. Between camps: Nations, cultures and the allure of race. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Grant, Anthony P. 2015. Lexical borrowing. In J. R. Taylor (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word, 431–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Essays in linguistics [Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 24]. New York, NY: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.Google Scholar
1978. Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, Volume 1: Word structure, 61–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grijns, Cornelis Dirk. 1980. Some notes on Jakarta Malay kinship terms: The predictability of complexity. Archipel 201. 187–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Jakarta Malay: A multidimensional approach to spatial variation. Leiden: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Barbara Dix. 1991. The development and use of Ambonese Malay. In Hein Steinhauer (ed.), Papers in Austronesian linguistics 11, 83–123. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Groeneboer, Kees. 1993. Weg tot het Westen. Leiden: Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ian F. 1975. Malacca Creole Portuguese: Asian, African or European? Anthropological Linguistics 17(5). 211–236.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 35–54. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Tania Kuteva. 2008. Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change. Journal of Language Contact 2(1). 57–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heuken, Adolf. 1997. Tempat-tempat Bersejarah di Jakarta. Jakarta: Cipta Loka Caraka.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich, & Brian D. Joseph. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1990. Is the “comparative” method general or family-specific?. In P. Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, 375–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holm, John A. 1989. Pidgins and creoles, vol. 2: Reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornborg, Alf. 2013. Kin terminologies as linguistic imprints of regional processes: The socioecological contexts of close versus distant marriage patterns in indigenous Amazonia. In P. McConvell, I. Keen & R. Hendery (ed), Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, 123–131. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Huet, Gédéon. 1909. La communauté portugaise de Batavia. Revista Lusitana 12(3–4). 149–170.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell Hathaway. 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. Current Anthropology 1(1). 3–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, Mark. 1998. Linguistic innovation and relationship terminology in the Pearl Lagoon Basin of Nicaragua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(4). 713–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jourdan, C. 2001. Creolization: Sociocultural aspects. in Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2903-.2906). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kadir, Hatib Abdul. 2017. Gifts, belonging, and emerging realities among “other Molucans” during the aftermath of sectarian conflict. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.
Kluge, Angela. 2017. A grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Knörr, Jacqueline. 2014. Creole identity in postcolonial Indonesia. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. Stephen, Cheryl Abundo, Guy S. Jacobs, Elsa G. Guillot, Stefan Thurner, Sean S. Downey, Lock Yue Chew, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Ning Ning Chung, Herawati Sudoyo, & Murray P. Cox. 2017. Kinship structures create persistent channels for language transmission. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49). 12910–12915. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Le Page, Robert B. 1986. Acts of identity. English Today 21. 21–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Page, Robert B. & Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leaf, Murray J., & Dwight W. Read. 2020. Introduction to the science of kinship. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Lebel, Alexandre. 2021. Grammar of Macao Creole Portuguese with Typological and Semiotic Considerations. Macau: University of Saint Joseph dissertation.
Litamahuputty, Betty. 2012. Ternate Malay: Grammar and texts. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Lopes, David de Melo. 1936. A expansão da língua portuguesa no Oriente durante os séculos XVI, XVII e XVIII. Barcelos: Portucalense Editora.Google Scholar
Lyon, Stephen, Mark A. Jamieson, & Michael D. Fischer. 2015. Persistent cultures: Miskitu kinship terminological fluidity. Structure and Dynamics 8(1). 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manusama-Moniaga, Frieda. 1995. Ikatan Keluarga Besar Tugu: Sekelumit sejarah tengan Gereja Tugu, Keroncong Tugu, Orang-orang Tugu dan suplemen buku silsilah ‘Abad ke-17 s/d abad ke-20’. Jakarta: ms.Google Scholar
Malekandathil, Pius. 2001. The Portuguese casados and the Intra-Asian trade: 1500–1663. In The Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Part One: Millennium 2000–2001, 385–406. Kolkata: Indian History Congress.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maurer, Philippe. 2011. The former Portuguese creole of Batavia and Tugu (Indonesia). London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Mbeki, Linda, & Matthias van Rossum. 2017. Private slave trade in the Dutch Indian Ocean world: A study into the networks and backgrounds of the slavers and the enslaved in South Asia and South Africa. Slavery & Abolition – A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies 38(1). 95–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 2013. Introduction – Kinship change in Anthropology and Linguistics. In P. McConvell, I. Keen & R. Hendery (ed), Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, 1–18. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
McGilvray, Dennis. B. 1982. Dutch Burghers and Portuguese mechanics: Eurasian ethnicity in Sri Lanka. Comparative Studies in Society and History 24(2). 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz; Paris: Honoré Champion; London: Williams & Norgate; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 2006. Language change and the speaker: On the discourse of historical linguistics. In T. D. Cravens (ed), Variation and Reconstruction, 145–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1871. Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the Human family. Washington: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge.Google Scholar
Nash, Catherine. 2002. Genealogical identities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 201. 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ngo, Jenny. 2017. An exploration of kinship terms of Hokkien Chinese-Indonesians in Surabaya. In Selected Proceedings of the International Conference: Doing Research in Applied Linguistics 3 / 19th English in South-East Asia Conference, 105–114. Bangkok: King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.Google Scholar
Niemeijer, Hendrik E. 2012. Batavia: Masyarakat Kolonial Abad XVII. Depok: MASUP Jakarta.Google Scholar
Niepokuj, Mary K. 2006. Variation and reconstruction – Introduction. In T. D. Cravens (ed), Variation and Reconstruction, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oetomo, Dédé. 1989. The ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. In Leo Suryadinata (ed.), The Ethnic Chinese in the ASEAN states: Bibliographical essays, 43–96. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Passmore, Sam, & Fiona M. Jordan. 2020. No universals in the cultural evolution of kinship terminology. Evolutionary Human Sciences 2(e42). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raben, Remco. 2020. Colonial shorthand and historical knowledge: Segregation and localisation in a Dutch colonial society. Journal of Modern European History 18(2). 177–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, Dwight W. 2013. Reconstructing the Proto-Polynesian Terminology: Kinship Terminologies as Evolving Logical Structures. In P. McConvell, I. Keen & R. Hendery (ed), Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, 59–90. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Ritsema, Alex. 2006. A Dutch castaway on Ascension Island in 1725. Deventer: Alex Ritsema.Google Scholar
Roberge, Paul T. 2006. On reconstructing a linguistic continuum in Cape Dutch (1710–1840). In T. D. Cravens (ed), Variation and Reconstruction, 179–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1889. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des kreolischen Romanisch V. Allgemeineres über das Indoportugiesische (Asioportugiesische). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 131. 476–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1890. Kreolischen Studien IX: Ueber das Malaioportugiesische von Batavia und Tugu. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1221. 1–256.Google Scholar
. 1891. H. Schuchardt, Kreolischen Studien IX: Ueber das Malaioportugiesische von Batavia und Tugu [Review]. Literaturblatt fuer germanische und romanische Philologie 121. 199–206.Google Scholar
Shahab, Yasmine Zaki. 1994. The creation of ethnic tradition: The Betawi of Jakarta. London: University of London dissertation.
Simpson, Jane. 2013. Warumungu kinship over time. In P. McConvell, I. Keen & R. Hendery (ed), Kinship systems: Change and reconstruction, 239–254. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Raymond T. 1963. Culture and social structure in the Caribbean: Some recent work on family and kinship studies. Comparative Studies in Society and History 6(1). 24–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Charles. 2007. Creolization: History, ethnography, theory. In Charles Stewart (ed.), Creolization: History, ethnography, theory (pp. 1–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1992. After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Kinship, law and the unexpected – Relatives are always a surprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suratminto, Lilie. 2011. Creole Portuguese of the Tugu village: Colonial heritage in Jakarta based on the historical and linguistic review. Tawarikh International Journal for Historical Studies 3(1). 1–30.Google Scholar
Suratminto, Lilie, Benny Hoedoro Hoed, F. X. Rahyono, Triaswarin Sutananihesti, Agni Malagina, Arif Budiman, Budi Eko Pranoto, Febri Taufiqurrahman, & Venansia Ajeng S. A. Pedo. 2016. Kepunahan bahasa: Bahasa kreol Tugu yang Punah dalam pemertahanan budaya Tugu. Depok: Laboratorium Leksikologi dan Leksikografi/Universitas Indonesia.Google Scholar
Suryadinata, Leo. 1984. Dilema minoritas Tionghoa. Jakarta: Grafiti Pers.Google Scholar
Swellengrebel, Jan Lodewijk. 1972. A Portuguese Bible translator in Java. The Bible Translator 23(1). 126–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1997. Language and identity. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics, 315–326. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tan, Raan Hann. 2016. Por-Tugu-Ese? The protestant Tugu community of Jakarta, Indonesia. Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa dissertation.
. 2019. Masyarakat Perkampungan Portugis di Jakarta: Persanakan, Petempatan dan Penamaan. Akademika 89(2). 123–137.Google Scholar
Taylor, Jean Gelman. 1983 [2009]. The social world of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G., & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact – An introduction. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2(1). 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurgood, Graham. 2006. Variation as a reflection of contact: Notes from Southeast Asia. In T. D. Cravens (ed), Variation and Reconstruction, 213–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomás, Maria Isabel. 2009. The role of women in the cross-pollination process in the Asian-Portuguese varieties. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 8(2). 49–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, Thomas R. 1981. Dravidian kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, Vincent J., Roosman, Lilie, & Van Zanten, Ellen. 2008. Betawi Malay word prosody. Lingua, 1181, 1271–1287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Kessel, Ineke. 2009. ‘Courageous but insolent’: African soldiers in the Dutch East as seen by Dutch officials and Indonesian neighbours. Transforming Cultures eJournal 4(2). 51–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Welie, Rik. 2008. Slave trading and slavery in the Dutch colonial empire: A global comparison. New West Indian Guide 82(1/2). 47–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wade, Peter. 2005. Hybridity theory and kinship thinking. Cultural Studies 19(5). 602–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1867. Language and the study of language. London: N. Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. 2016. Kinship past, kinship present: Bio-essentialism in the study of kinship. American Anthropologist 118(3). 570–584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zomerdijk, Adriaan. 1780. Nieuwe woordenschat, uyt het Nederduitsch in het gemeene Maleidsch en Portugeesch, zeer gemakkelyk voor die eerst op Batavia komen. Batavia: Lodewyk Dominicus.Google Scholar