3. East Nusantara as a linguistic area

Abstract

In this paper we consider how Eastern Indonesia may be treated as a linguistic area. We propose fi ve defi ning linguistic features and we discuss their occurrence in some 40 Austronesian (AN) and non-Austronesian (NAN) languages of South Sulawesi, Flores, Sumba, Timor, Alor and Pantar, the Moluccas, Halmahera, the Bird's Head, and the Cenderawasih Bay. We propose that of these fi ve areal features, three originally Papuan features have diff used into the Austronesian languages, while two Austronesian features have diff used into the Papuan languages. Th ese Papuan features are: (1) possessor-possessum order in adnominal possession, (2) overt marking of the distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession, and (3) clause-fi nal negation. While these features are not generally found in Austronesian, we will demonstrate that they occur in many Austronesian languages in East Nusantara and around the Bird's Head, as well as in the Papuan languages of this area. Th e Austronesian features are: (4) SVO as primary constituent order, and (5) an inclusive/exclusive opposition in the pronominal paradigm. Th ese features are not found in Papuan languages in general, yet they are attested in both the Papuan and the Austronesian languages of East Nusantara, as we will demonstrate. Although the features do not all converge on the same isoglosses, together they defi ne a linguistic area: East Nusantara. Th is area has Halmahera and the Bird's Head as its core, and radiates outwards to include the Moluccas and Alor/Pantar fi rst, followed by the island Timor. . Research for this project was fi nanced through two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientifi c Research (NWO) and a grant from the European Science Foundation (ESFO). We wish to thank Pieter Muysken and ** for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Wallacea, a Linguistic Area

“…This is because these features are not areally well demarcated: that is, they are not limited in any significant way either to Austronesian or Papuan languages within Wallacea. This finding is contrary to previous statements of the region as a linguistic area, in particular Klamer (2002), Klamer et al (2008) and Musgrave (2008). These works fail to look east as well as west when defining the area, instead they at best consider features only in comparison to the Austronesian languages further to the west, that is, outside the Melanesian area.…”

“…The map uses the data from Dryer (2013c) and builds on Reesink (2002) and Klamer et al (2008). negation.…”

“…These works fail to look east as well as west when defining the area, instead they at best consider features only in comparison to the Austronesian languages further to the west, that is, outside the Melanesian area. The result is that features that are Melanesian rather than specifically Wallacean have been erroneously used to define the area (see, e.g., Ross' 2003 and Donohue's 2004 criticisms of Klamer 2002 or Vossen & van der Auwera 2013's demonstration of the New Guinea-wide distribution of the negatives discussed in Klamer et al 2008).…”

“…However, possessive classification is much more often present in Papuan languages than it is absent and is found in most Papuan families extending the full length of the Papuan area. The map is based on a synthesis of Adelaar (2005: 25), Donohue and Schapper (2008), Klamer et al (2008), Lichtenberk (2013), Nichols &Bickel (2013), andTerrill (2002). …”

The dispersal of Austronesian languages in Island South East Asia: Current findings and debates

“…Since they are confined to the region where we know that Papuan languages are, or have been spoken it seems plausible that the structure was borrowed into MP languages from Papuan languages spoken in their vicinities. Other features that appear to have leaked from Papuan languages into MP languages include the use of a post‐predicate negator instead of, or in addition to, a pre‐predicate one (Reesink, ; Klamer et al, , 130–34; Florey, ; Fricke, ); and making a formal distinction between nouns that are alienably or inalienably possessed (Ross, , 138; Klamer et al, , 116–122)…”