A Brief Linguistic Outline of the Hobongan Language

Authors

  • Marla Perkins independent scholar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33736/jbk.6454.2024

Keywords:

Hobongan, Hovongan, Austronesian, description

Abstract

Hobongan, an Austronesian language spoken by approximately two thousands people in the Indonesian parts of Borneo, is an as yet undescribed language. This outline is a brief report on the major typological, social, discourse, sentential, morphological, and phonological structures of Hobongan. The Hobongan language is spoken by a community that is under typical pressures toward attrition: political, economic, educational, generational. Within discourse, it tends to prioritize spatial information (location, navigation) over other types of information (information about character, temporality). Hobongan is a strongly subject-verb-object language, with adjectival verbs. Morphologically, Hobongan is primarily analytic and uses exclusively prefixes to make morphological distinctions currently, and there is some evidence of other morphological processes in the language. There is some lexical flexibility in the language, but prefixes clarify lexical category for many uses of terms. Hobongan is phonologically typical of the languages spoken in that part of the world, being non-tonal, having five vowels, and using a typologically expected inventory of consonants. Allophonic nasalization is common, and vowel length is phonemic. This outline should not be considered comprehensive, and analysis of materials collected during field visits continues.

References

Arka, I. W. 2013. Language management and minority language maintenance in (eastern) Indonesia: strategic issues. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 74-105.

Blust, R. A. 2004. Austronesian nasal substitution: A survey. Oceanic Linguistics 43(1): 73-148.

Bühler, K. L. 1934/1990. The theory of language: The representational function of language (sprachtheorie). Trans. D. F. Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Czaykowska-Higgins, E. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working with Canadian indigenous communities. Language Documentation and Conservation 3(1): 15-50.

Diessel, H. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimmendaal, G. J. 2001. Places and peoples: Field sites and informants. In P. Newman & M. Ratliff (Eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork (55-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic linguistic theory, volume 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ebbinghaus, H. 1885. Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Translated by H. A.

Ruger and C. E. Bussenius, 1913. Reprinted in Annals of Neurosciences, 2013, 20(4): 155-156. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117135/.

Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 4th ed. Dallas: SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hov.

Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge. Fox, A. 2012. Principles of intonational typology. London: Routledge.

Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M., and Bank, S., eds. 2022. Hobongan. Glottolog 4.7. Longacre, R. E. 1983/1996. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press/Springer.

Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Perkins, M. 2019. Real Hobongan: Reconsidering REAL and FAKE in the field. Invited presentation at the Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg, 16 January, 2019.

Perkins, M. 2017. Toward a typology or ranking elements of narrative discourse in languages and cultures: A cross-linguistic survey. International Journal of Literary Linguistics, 6, 1. https://journals.linguistik.de/ijll/index.php/ijll/article/view/101.

Perkins, M. 2009. There and back again: Discourse and pragmatic strategies for describing spatial locations in narrative fiction. https://www.proquest.com/openview/ 684e63ba84d2dcdbff3a37d4b4579df3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750. )16 November, 2022)

Pike, K. L. 1964. Beyond the sentence. College Composition and Communication 15, 129-135.

Rothman, S. B. 2015. Focusing events and frames: Presentations of the Fukushima incident. Asia-Pacific World, 6(2): 28-49.

Sawaki, Y. W. 2016. A grammar of Wooi: An Austronesian language of Yapen Island, Western New Guinea. Dissertation: Australian National University. https://openresearch- repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/136851. 16 November, 2022.

SIL. 2024. Narrative discourse. Glossary of Linguistic Terms. https://glossary.sil.org/term/narrative-discourse.

Talmy, L. 2000. Lexicalization patterns. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol II, 21-146.

Vassière, J. 1995. Phonetic explanations for cross-linguistic prosodic similarities. Phonetica 52(3): 123-130.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-30

How to Cite

Perkins, M. (2024). A Brief Linguistic Outline of the Hobongan Language. Journal of Borneo-Kalimantan, 10(2), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.33736/jbk.6454.2024