Ridha Mashudi Wibowo

A Comparison of Cognate Dialect Features in Javanese, Sundanese, Cirebon, and Indramayu

Introduction

A comparison of cognate dialect features in javanese, sundanese, cirebon, and indramayu. Compares cognate features in Javanese, Sundanese, Cirebon, and Indramayu dialects. Identifies 28 shared cognates and analyzes dialectal relationships, finding Javanese and Cirebon closest.

Abstract

This study aims to identify cognates based on form and meaning among Javanese, Sundanese, Cirebon, and Indramayu vocabularies and analyze their dialectal relationships. Using a list of one hundred Swadesh vocabulary items sourced from dictionaries of the four languages, the data were phonetically transcribed and compared to identify shared lexemes. Dialectometric analysis was then applied to quantify lexical distances and classify dialectal relationships. The findings show that the four languages share 28 cognates and exhibit varying degrees of linguistic proximity: Javanese and Cirebon show the closest relationship, while other pairs are classified as distinct dialects. While the study integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches and contributes insights into less-studied dialects such as Cirebon and Indramayu, it is limited by its reliance on secondary data and lack of fieldwork. Future research should incorporate direct elicitation from native speakers, phonological correspondence analysis, the etymological distinction between cognates and loanwords, and sociolinguistic and geographical mapping to deepen the understanding of dialectal variation in Java

Review

The study "A Comparison of Cognate Dialect Features in Javanese, Sundanese, Cirebon, and Indramayu" presents a valuable initial exploration into the linguistic relationships among these significant languages and dialects in Java. The stated aim to identify cognates and analyze dialectal relationships using the Swadesh vocabulary list and dialectometric analysis is clear and well-defined. The integration of both qualitative (cognate identification) and quantitative (lexical distance quantification) approaches provides a robust methodological framework for such a comparative study. A key strength lies in its focus on Cirebon and Indramayu, which are often less comprehensively studied compared to the dominant Javanese and Sundanese, thus contributing fresh insights to the linguistic landscape of the region. While the approach is sound, several methodological aspects require further scrutiny. The reliance on a 100-item Swadesh list, while standard for initial comparative work, might be insufficient to capture the full complexity of dialectal variation, especially given the finding of only 28 shared cognates across four closely related linguistic varieties. This low number raises questions about the definition and identification criteria for "cognates" within the study, particularly the critical distinction between true cognates (shared etymological origin) and loanwords, a nuance not explicitly detailed in the abstract but acknowledged as a future need. The most significant limitation, as the authors themselves point out, is the exclusive use of secondary data from dictionaries. This inherently limits the ability to capture current, natural language use, regional variations within each dialect, phonetic nuances, and the dynamic nature of linguistic change. Without direct elicitation from native speakers and detailed phonological correspondence analysis, the identified "shared lexemes" and subsequent dialectal classifications may lack the depth and empirical grounding necessary for definitive conclusions. Despite these limitations, the study serves as an important foundational work, establishing a baseline for understanding the lexical proximity among Javanese, Sundanese, Cirebon, and Indramayu. The identified closest relationship between Javanese and Cirebon is a noteworthy finding that warrants further investigation. To elevate this research from an initial survey to a robust academic contribution, addressing the authors' own suggested future directions is crucial. Incorporating extensive fieldwork with direct speaker elicitation, rigorous phonological and etymological analysis to precisely differentiate cognates from loanwords, and a more comprehensive sociolinguistic and geographical mapping would significantly strengthen the findings and provide a much deeper understanding of the intricate dialectal variations. While the current findings offer valuable preliminary insights, substantial revisions focusing on data collection and analytical depth would be necessary before publication in a high-impact journal.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.