Cover not available
Article published In:
When Dialogue Fails
Edited by Anja Müller-Wood
[Language and Dialogue 12:1] 2022
► pp. 150–168

Parity lost

Polyphony, silence, and syncretism between traditional Hobongan and modern cultural practices

Following Bakhtin (e.g., [1999] 1984, 184), dialogue studies have assumed at least some form of parity between dialogic participants. But what happens when parity is significantly disrupted or lost entirely? In this report of cultural practice among the Hobongan living on the island of Borneo, I examine the results of lost parity on traditional Hobongan and Christian-influenced cultural practices. The Hobongan typically acknowledge the lack of parity and ignore it, or they accept the lack of parity and try to rejoin polyphony through conversion. Syncretism presents a more complex case because dialogue remains possible: both Hobongan and Christian-influenced practices are combined to avoid unpleasant dialogues.

Keywords: Hobongan, Hovongan, Bakhtin, dialogue, Austronesian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Definitions
    • 1.2Scope and limitations
  • 2.Methods
  • 3.The Hobongan situation
    • 3.1Some geography and history
    • 3.2Technology
    • 3.3Commerce
    • 3.4Religion
      • 3.4.1Missionary dialogue
      • 3.4.2Hobongan dialogue
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00116.per
References
Babcock, Tim G.
1974 “Indigenous Ethnicity in Sarawak.” Sarawak Museum Journal 221: 191–202.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1999 [1984] Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Barkham, Patrick
2008 (9 November). “The Power of Speech”. The Guardian. [URL]
Conley, William W.
1974 “Kenyah Receptivity and Response to Christianity.” Sarawak Museum Journal 22(43): 311–321.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Eva
2009 “Research Models, Community Engagement, and Linguistic Fieldwork: Reflections on Working with Canadian Indigenous Communities.” Language Documentation and Conservation 3(1): 15–50.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
2001 “Places and Peoples: Field Sites and Informants.” In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 55–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B.
2017 “Indigenous Linguists: Bringing Research into Language Revitalization.” International Journal of American Linguistics 83(4): 607–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Wesley Y.
2017 “Producing Language Reclamation by Decolonising ‘Language’”. In Language Documentation and Description, vol. 141, ed. By Wesley Y. Leonard and Haley de Korne, 15–36. London: EL Publishing.Google Scholar
McGivney, Annette
2021 (3 July). “The Battle for Mount Rushmore: ‘It Should be Turned into Something Like the Holocaust Museum.’” The Guardian. [URL]
Niditch, Susan
1996 Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J.
2007 [2002] Orality and Literacy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther
2014 Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riederer, Rachel
2019 “An Uncommon Victory for an Indigenous Tribe in the Amazon.” The New Yorker 15 May. [URL]
Villa, Daniel J.
2002 “Integrating Technology into Minority Language Preservation and Teaching Efforts: An Inside job.” Language Learning and Technology 6(2): 92–101.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2010 “Language as Dialogue”. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(3): 505–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whittier, Herbert L. and Patricia R. Whittier
1974 “The Apo Kayan area of East Kalimantan.” Sarawak Museum Journal 221: 5–15.Google Scholar