Cover not available
Part of
Austronesian Undressed: How and why languages become isolating
Edited by David Gil and Antoinette Schapper
[Typological Studies in Language 129] 2020
► pp. 287–338

Chapter 6
Are the Central Flores languages really typologically unusual?

 | University of California, Berkeley
The languages of Central Flores (Austronesian) are typologically distinct from their nearby relatives. They have elaborate numeral classifier systems, quinary numeral systems, and lack all bound morphology. McWhorter (2019) proposes that their isolating typology is due to imperfect language acquisition of a Sulawesi language, brought to Flores by settlers from Sulawesi in the relatively recent past. I propose an alternative interpretation, which better accounts for the other typological features found in Central Flores: the Central Flores languages are isolating because they have a strong substrate influence from a now-extinct isolating language which belonged to the Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area (Gil 2015). This explanation better accounts for the typological profile of Central Flores and is a more plausible contact scenario.
Keywords: Central Flores languages, Eastern Indonesia, isolating languages, Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area, substrate influence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The Mekong-Mamberamo language area
    • 2.2McWhorter’s view of isolating languages
    • 2.3McWhorter’s definition of linguistic complexity
    • 2.4McWhorter’s proposed historical scenario
  • 3.Introduction to the languages of Flores
    • 3.1Languages of West Flores: Manggarai
    • 3.2Languages of East Flores: Sika, Lamaholot
    • 3.3Languages of Central Flores: Lio, Ende, Nage, Keo, Ngadha, Rongga
  • 4.Central Flores languages have typical Mekong-Mamberamo typology
    • 4.1The passing gesture
    • 4.2Repeated dental clicks expressing amazement
    • 4.3Conventionalised greeting with “where?”
    • 4.4‘eye day’ to ‘sun’ lexicalisation
    • 4.5d/t place of articulation asymmetry
    • 4.6Numeral classifiers
    • 4.7Verby adjectives
    • 4.8Basic SVO constituent order
    • 4.9Iamitive perfects
    • 4.10‘Give’ causatives
    • 4.11Low differentiation of adnominal attributive constructions
    • 4.12Weakly developed grammatical voice
    • 4.13Isolating word structure
    • 4.14Short words
    • 4.15Low grammatical-morpheme density
    • 4.16Optional thematic-role flagging
    • 4.17Optional TAM marking
    • 4.18Summary: Mekong-Mamberamo features in Central Flores languages
  • 5.Additional evidence from the Central Flores numeral system
  • 6.Historical proposal for Central Flores languages
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.129.06eli
References (51)
References
Aoki, Eriko & Nakagawa, Satoshi. 1993. Endenese-English Dictionary. Ms.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan. 2016. Bahasa Rongga: Deskripsi, Tipologi, dan Teori (The Rongga Language: Description, Typology, and Theory). Jakarta: Atma Jaya University Press.Google Scholar
Arka, I Wayan, Seda, Franciscus, Gelang, Antonius, Nani, Yonahes & Ture, Ivan. 2011. A Rongga-English Dictionary with English-Rongga Finderlist. Jakarta: Atma Jaya University Press.Google Scholar
Arndt, Paul. 1933a. Lionesisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Ende: Arnoldus-Druckerei.Google Scholar
. 1933b. Grammatik der Ngada-Sprache. Bandung: A.C. Nix & Co.Google Scholar
. 1937. Grammatik der Solor-Sprache. Ende: Arnoldus-Druckerei.Google Scholar
. 1961. Wörterbuch der Ngadhasprache. Posieux: KITLV.Google Scholar
Baird, Lousie. 2002. A Grammar of Kéo: An Austronesian Language of East Nusantara. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bellwood, Peter. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malayan Archipelago. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2008. Is there a Bima-Sumba subgroup? Oceanic Linguistics 47(1): 45–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Austronesian Languages, rev. edn. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert & Trussel, Stephen. 2019. The Austronesian Comparative Dictionary, online edn. Available at <[URL]> (1 June 2020).
Brown, Peter, Sutnika, Thomas, Morwood, Michael J., Soejono, Raden P., Jatmiko, Saptomo, E. Wayhu & Awe Due Rokus. 2004. A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431: 1055–1061. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2003. Bata Lu’a ca (Palu’e-Indonesian-English dictionary). Ms.Google Scholar
. 2005. The Palu’e passive: From pragmatic construction to grammatical device. In The Many Faces of Austronesian Voice Systems: Some New Empirical Studies, I. Wayan Arka & Malcolm Ross (eds), 59–85. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Elias, Alexander. 2018. Lio and the Central Flores Languages. MA thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Erb, Maribeth. 1999. The Manggarais. Singapore: Times Edition.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud & Fenk, August. 2008. Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 43–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forth, Gregory. 1998. Beneath the Volcano: Religion, Cosmology and Spirit Classification among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV.Google Scholar
. 2004. Nage Birds: Classification and Symbolism among an Eastern Indonesian People. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia: An Anthropological Perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Human beings and other people: Classification of human group and categories among the Nage of Flores (Eastern Indonesia). Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 165: 493–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Why the Porcupine is Not a Bird: Explorations in the Folk Zoology of an Eastern Indonesian People. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fricke, Hanna. 2013. Topics in the Grammar of Hewa: A Variety of Sika in Eastern Flores, Indonesia [Languages of the World 45]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2019. Traces of Language Contact: The Flores-Lembata Languages in Eastern Indonesia. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2015. The Mekong-Mamberamo linguistic area. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art, Nicholas J. Enfield & Bernard Comrie (eds), 266–355. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hull, Geoffrey. 1998. The basic lexical affinities of Timor’s Austronesian languages: A preliminary investigation. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of East Timor 1: 97–174.Google Scholar
Ingram, Arthur. 1977. Shepherding Tools and Customs. London: Shire Publications.Google Scholar
Keraf, Gregorius. 1978. Morfologi Dialek Lamalera (Morphology of the Lamalera Dialect). PhD dissertation, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.Google Scholar
Levi, Ferdinandus. 1978. A Preliminary Study of Lionese. BA thesis, Sanata Dharma Teacher’s Training Institute, Jakarta.Google Scholar
Lewis, E. Douglas. 2010. The stranger-kings of Sikka: With an integrated edition of two manuscripts on the origin and history of the Rajadom of Sikka. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 257. Leiden: KITLV. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, Bradley. 2009. A preliminary description of Ende phonology. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2: 197–288.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5(2): 125–166.Google Scholar
. 2007. Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases of Indonesia. In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Affixless in Austronesian: Why Flores is a puzzle and what to do about it. In Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress? [Language Contact and Bilingualism 1] John McWhorter (ed), 223–260. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Is radical analycity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. In Cyclical Change Continued [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 227], Elly van Gelderen (ed), 49–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The radically isolating languages of Flores: A challenge to diachronic theory. Journal of Historical Linguistics 9(2): 177–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagaya, Naonori. 2011. The Lamaholot Language of Eastern Indonesia. PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio & Kelen, Herman. 2007. A Grammar of Lamaholot, Eastern Indonesia: The Morphology and Syntax of the Lewoingu Dialect [Languages of the World/Materials 467]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Pampus, Karl Heinz. 1999. Koda kiwa: Dreisprachiges Wörterbuch des Lamaholot (Dialekt von Lewolema). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Pareira, Mandalangi & Lewis, E. Douglas. 1998. Kamus Sara Sikka-Bahasa Indonesia (Sika- Indonesian Dictionar). Ende: Nusa Indah.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Papuan Pasts: Studies in the Cultural, Linguistic and Biological History of the Papuan-speaking Peoples, Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), 15–66. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoinette & Klamer, Marian. 2014. Numeral systems in the Alor-Pantar languages. In The Alor-Pantar Languages: History and Typology, Marian Klamer (ed.), 285–336. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schapper, Antoinette. 2017. Introduction to The Papuan Languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. Volume II. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semiun, Agustinus. 2017. Clitics of Manggarai language: The case of Central Manggarai dialect in West Flores Indonesia. International Journal of Development Research 7(1): 11380–11387.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thurston, William. 1987. Processes of Change in the Languages of Northwestern New Britain. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Bekkum, Wilhelm. 1944. Warloka-Todo-Pongkor: Een Brok Geschiedenis van Manggarai (West-Flores). Cultureel Indië 6: 144–52.Google Scholar
Verheijen, Jilis. 1967. Kamus Manggarai. The Hague: KITLV.Google Scholar
. 1982. Komodo: Het Eiland, het Volk en de Taal (Komodo: The Island, the People and the Language). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Alexander Adelaar & Antoinette Schapper
2024. The Oxford Guide to the Malayo-Polynesian Languages of Southeast Asia, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.