THE DIFFERENCES OF LOLOAN DIALECT AND PEKUTATAN

DIALECT IN TERMS OF PHONOLOGICAL VARIATION AND

LEXICAL VARIATION

By:

I Putu Wahyu Pratama

1412021007

English Language Education

Language and Art Faculty
Ganesha University of Education
2018
A. Title
THE DIFFERENCES OF LOLOAN DIALECT AND PEKUTATAN
DIALECT IN TERMS OF PHONOLOGICAL VARIATION AND
LEXICAL VARIATION

B. Researcher’s Identity
Name : I Putu Wahyu Pratama
NIM : 1412021007
Department : English Education Department
Education : Under Graduate

C. Research Background

Language was very important in our life. We used language for our daily
communication, to transfer idea and to make relationship to others. According
to O’Grady, Dobrovolsky and Katamba (as cited in Restuaji, 2017), language is
a communication system, a media of thought, a literary expression vehicle, a
social institution, a political controversy matter and catalyst for nation building.
A communication system means that language was used to transfer the
intention from the speaker to the addressee in certain purpose. Media of
thought means that language was used as a media of discussion and transferring
knowledge. A literary expression means that language was used to express idea
or way of thinking. A social institution means that language was used for the
transferring knowledge to the students in the school. A political controversy
matter means that language was used for persuading people or affecting
people’s mind about political matter. Language was also used as catalyst of
nation building means that language is used for the way of delivering the
association or public’s aspiration to the government.

Language is used in every regional, included Indonesia. Indonesia has many

language variations that make a very unique culture among the tourist from
foreign country. Every region in Indonesia has different language variations
and one of them is dialect. According to Nordquist (2010), dialect is a regional
or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or
vocabulary, especially a way of speaking that differs from the standard variety
of the language. So, although we live in Indonesia which use Bahasa Indonesia
dominantly, but when we converse with people around us we will use our
original dialect. For example is Balinese people. They will use Bahasa
Indonesia for the specific purpose but they will use Balinese dialect for
conversing with the people around them in daily activity.

Bali has many dialects which were occurred from many regions. Balinese
dialect was a mother tongue of Balinese people. According to Bawa and Jendra
(1981: 3), Balinese dialect can be divided into 2 dialects. There are Bali Aga
dialect and Bali Dataran dialect. Bali Aga dialect referred into old dialect in
which they live in some of the mountainous areas commonly and it referred
into older villages such as Pedawa village, Sidatapa village, Tigawasa village,
Tenganan village, Nusa Penida village, Bugbug village, Seraya village,
Sembiran village, Madenan village, region of Bintang Danu, Selulun village,
Mayong village, Bantiran village, and Belimbing village. Meanwhile, Bali
Dataran dialect is a dialect which has been influenced by many languages and it
referred to other villages beside Bali Aga villages and it exists in nine regencies
in Bali such as: Buleleng, Jembrana, Denpasar, Badung, Klungkung,
Karangasem, Tabanan, Gianyar and Bangli.

According to Kusuma (2015: 2), Bali Aga dialect is the original dialect of
Balinese people. The language of Bali Aga is different than the language which
is commonly used in Bali. Therefore, Bali Dataran dialect is the Balinese
dialect which is commonly used in Bali. The differences of Balinese dialect can
be seen from phonological variation (pronunciation) and lexical variation
(vocabulary), one of them occurred in Tigawasa and Dencarik villages. They
are located in Banjar district Buleleng regency. Although they are still a part of
Banjar district but their dialect is different. For example when the people in
Tigawasa said the word “Where” or in Indonesia it is called “Kemana” but in
Tigawasa village it is called “dIjʌpʌ”, but in Dencarik village it is called “Ijə”.
This study is also supported by Budasi (2015: pp123-128) in his study entitled
“Pembeda Fonologis dan Leksikal Antara Bahasa Sawu Di NTT Dan Bahasa
Bima Di NTB”. The result was about, there were some indications of
phonological and lexical variation in Sawu and Bima language. Based on that
case, the researcher decided to conduct this study is about “The Differences of
Loloan Dialect And Pekutatan Dialect In Terms of Phonological Variation And
Lexical Variation”. By conducting this research, the researcher wants to show
to the reader the Balinese dialect from two villages which have a lot of unique
culture that can be researched by getting the information from the humble
people who live in those villages and it is good for the enrichment of Balinese
culture.

D. Statements of The Problems

1. What are the differences in term of phonological variation of Loloan

dialect and Pekutatan dialect?
2. What are the differences in term of lexical variation of Loloan dialect and
Pekutatan dialect?

E. Purpose of the Study

The purposes of the study were formulated as follows:

1. To know the differences in term of phonological variation of Loloan

dialect and Pekutatan dialect.
2. To know the differences in term of lexical variation of Loloan dialect and
Pekutatan dialect.

F. Scope of the Study

This study was descriptive research and it would be conducted in Loloan

village and Pekutatan village, Negare regency. This research was focused on
linguistic study. The researcher limited this study to compare the phonological
and lexical system of Loloan dialect and Pekutatan dialect of the Balinese
language when doing interaction. So, it focused on the differences in the term
of phonological and lexical variation of Loloan village and Pekutatan village.

G. Significance of the Study

1. Theoretically Significance

Theoretically, the results of this study were expected to give significant

information and deeper understanding about phonological and lexical
process, especially in the phonological and lexical variation in Loloan
dialect and Pekutatan dialect.

2. Practically Significance
a. For English Education Department, This study would be contributed to
English Education Department as well as for lecturers and the students
who teach and learn about linguistics. Therefore, this study also be used
as the additional knowledge for the lecturer to make a further research
and the students could use this study as the reference in making
anything which is still in one scope.
b. For the researchers, For other researchers, the result of this study could
be used as a reference when the other researchers wanted to conduct the
same research.
c. For the Indonesian Government, The government could use the result of
this study as an authentic file or document and as a culture preservation
about Loloan dialect and Pekutatan dialect.

H. Review of Related Literature

1. Theoretical Review
a. Dialect

According to Roach (2004), dialect is a variety of a language which is

different from others not only in pronunciation aspect, but also in other
aspects such as vocabulary, grammar and word order. Besides that,
according to Francis (2016), dialect refers to languages that are minority,
non-official, lacking standardization and a formal grammar, and an
independent and established writing system.

Then, according to Marioleni (2014), dialect is a code of

communication in which dialectical language elements illustrate the story
(population movements, consular influences etc.), sociology and folklore.
In education, dialects are often addressed in the classroom only in the
context of attempting to encourage students to accommodate more
standardized varieties (Dunstan, Jaeger: 2015).

Language was different with dialect. According to Hudson (1996),

there is a difference of size between language and dialect, because a
language is larger than a dialect. Another contrast between language and
dialect was a question of prestige, a language having prestige which a
dialect lacks. A language was used in formal writing such as Standard
English while dialects were not used.

b. Lexicon

There were some linguist which stated about lexical variation, one of
them was from Katamba (1993), lexicon is the collection of words, the
internalized dictionary that every speaker of the language had. Lexicon
includes lexeme which is used to actualize words in which the lexemes
are formed according to morpho-syntatic rules (Ariasih, 2014). Based on
those statements, it could be assumed that lexicon was the collection of
word which had a very specific rule.

According to Sowa (as cited in Wicaksana, 2017), lexicon is the

bridge between a language and the knowledge expressed in that language.
So, without language we could not transfer the idea, the way of thinking,
expression, intention etc. Besides, Sadusrt (2010 as cited in Wahyuni,
2015) describe lexicon as the vocabulary of a language, the lexical
knowledge of an individual. In other word, lexicon was the vocabulary of
language which was used for bridging communication.
c. Lexical Variation

There were some linguists stated about lexical variation and one of
them is Setiawan (2015), lexical variation is the variety or the enrichment
of the vocabulary which belongs to the specific characteristic of specific
community. The difference community had their own characteristic in
vocabulary. There are some classifications of lexical variation based on
different experts. One of them is Vinson (as cited in Wicaksana, 2017)
divided the lexical variation into three categories. There are lexical
variations based on phonetics, spelling (form) and body language/
gesture. The lexical variation in phonetics refers to the variation in
phonetics system in which the word cause different meaning of the word.
The lexical variation in spelling refers to the variation in term of form of
the word in which cause some differentiation in meaning. Variation in
body language or gesture refers to the variation in which gesture or body
language refers different concept of the user. Therefore, Diab (2010)
classified the lexical variation into four categories. There are identical,
semantic cognates, homographs/homophones and distinct. Identical
means word that is identical in all respect phonological, morphological of
the user of the language. Semantic cognates refers to word that had the
same regular phonological in which refers to the semantics concept of the
user of the language. Homographs/ Homophones refers to the word had
the similar pronunciation but different in meaning. However, distinct
refers to word that belong uniquely to only one varieties or the same
meaning.

Geeraerts (1994) classified lexical variation into four categories. There

are semasiological variation, onomasiological variation, formal variation
and contextual variation. Semasiological variation is the variation which
refers to diverse semantic values. Semasiological variation involves the
situation when the particular lexical items may refer to distinct type of
referents. Onomasiological variation refers to the situation when the
word is included into different categories. It is also supported by
Mardjohan, Suarnajaya, Seken and Budasi (2015) which state that
onomasiological variation is the lexical variation in which there is a
lexical shift based on the different concept in different places which lead
into different pronunciation. Contextual variation refers to the relation
between speaker, lexical item and contextual situation like geographical
differences, language formality and sociological characteristic in that
area. Formal variation refers to the referent which is may be named by
means of various lexicon.

Based on the theories of categorization above about lexical variation

based on the experts, the category of lexical variation which is suitable in
this study is based on Geeraerts in 1994 which classifies lexical variation
into semasiological variation, onomasiological variation, formal variation
and contextual variation. This theory is suitable because this theory is a
theory which represents another theory from others. It can be seen from
the relation between theories.

1. Semasiological variation refers to diverse semantic values. For

example, pants may refer to trousers which is defined as “two-
legged outer garment covering the lower half of the body” or
underpants which is defined as “a short man"s undergarment worn
below the waist” (Geerarets, 1994).
2. Onomasiological variation refers to lexical shift in different
concept in different places for example is tabiya kerinyi” for the
small size chilli and “tabiya” for the normal size chilli in Lemukih
dialect but in Sawan dialect all of them are categorized as chilli
(Mardjohan, Asril, Seken and Budasi, 2015). Another example is
trouser. Trouser can be referred as pants or jeans (Geeraerts, 1994)
3. Formal variation refers to variation in the choice of lexical items
regardless of whether these represent conceptually different
categories or not. According to Geeraerts (1994,78) Formal
variation involving the variation of a sociolinguistics, contextual
nature.
 4. Contextual variation refers to the relationship between the lexical
item and the surrounding, for example pant in British English is
formal rather than trouser which is less formal in British English
(Geeraerts, 1994).

d. Phonological Variation

2. Empirical Review

There are some definition of phonological variation proposed by linguist,

one of them is the definition of Keijer (2014) classified the phonological
variation into three categories. Those three categories of phonological
variation were phonological variation on the underlying level, phonological
variation on the surface level and phonological variation on phonetic. The
phonological variation on the underlying level referred to the variation in
which the variation led the different meaning of word. The phonological
variation on the surface level referred to the variation in which leads no
differences in meaning but categories. The phonological variation on the
phonetic referred to the differentiation in the auditory input but not led
differences in the meaning.

Connie and Pinnow (2006) stated that variability that occurred as a result
of phonological processes presents differences of pronunciation. It meant
that the phonological variation in certain community was caused by
phonological process which could be seen on pronunciation.

Crowley (1992) differentiates phonological variation based on the types

of sound changes. The types of sound change based on Crowley’s theory
were Lenition and Fortition, Sound Addition, Metathesis, Fusion,
Unpacking, Vowel Breaking, Assimilation, Dissimiliation and another
abnormal Sound Change. Lenition was the change from the stronger
phoneme into a weaker phoneme or it was called as “weakening” and
Fortition was the change from the weaker phoneme into the stronger
phoneme or it was called as “strengthening”. Sound Addition was adding the
phoneme into the word. Metathesis was the change in order of the sound.
Fusion was the two separated sound become a single sound. Unpacking was
the opposite of Fusion which means the development of two sounds or more
from a single original sound. Vowel breaking means a single vowel changes
to become a dipthong with the original vowel remain the same. Assimilation
was one sound caused another sound to change to make the two sounds
become similar. Dissimilation was one sound which changes to become less
similar with the nearby sound.

In other word Campbell (2004, 27) classified the phonological processes

which were occurred in phonological variation more specific based on the
sound changes which was most often encountered by all language in the
world, there were assimilation, dissimilation, deletion, insertion, metathesis
and some others sound changes.

Thus, based on some theories above this study used Crowley’s theory and
Campbell’s theory as the appropriate theory. Their theories were most
suitable for this study because it concerned more about phonological feature
like the changes of sound and it was based on the all language phenomenon
in the world.

There were some sound changes that will be discussed, there were:

a. Assimilation
Assimilation is a process of speech sound changes in which the
two different phonemes undergo the alteration and become similar
(Keraf, g.1996). This happened because the sounds of the language
were spoken in sequence, so that each phoneme had the potential to
affect or be affected. It was supported by Roach (1983: 105) stated that
assimilation was the condition when a phoneme realized differently as
a result of being near some other phoneme which is belonging to a
neighboring word. Ristanti (2015) also specifically differentiates
assimilation based on two categories. The first, there were two kinds of
assimilation based on characteristic. There were partial and total
 assimilation. Partial assimilation was the similarity which was
occurred partly in the word construction. Meanwhile, total assimilation
was the similarity which was occurred totally in the word construction.
Second, there were three kinds of assimilation based on place of
assimilation. Those were progressive assimilation, regressive
assimilation and reciprocal assimilation.
Progressive assimilation was the assimilation sound which was
after the assimilating sound. The example of progressive assimilation
is the word “kolnis” in Proto-Indo European and change into “collis”
in Latin. From this example, the phoneme /n/ is adjacent to the
phoneme /l/. It means phoneme /l/ assimilate phoneme /n/ that makes
phoneme /n/ is changed (Campbell, 2004).
Regressive assimilation was the assimilated sound which was
before the assimilating sound. The example of regressive assimilation
was in the word “impossible”. Impossible came from combination
between prefix {in-} and lexeme “possible”. Phoneme /n/ in prefix {in-
} was assimilated by the phoneme /p/ in the lexeme “possible” and
changes into phoneme /m/ in the word “impossible”.
Reciprocal assimilation is the assimilation in which the
phoneme is assimilating each other to create a new phoneme (Muslich,
2012: 119 as cited by Ristati, 2015).
b. Dissimilation
Dissimilation is the condition when a sound changes one of its
features to become less similar to an adjacent sound, usually to make
the two sounds more distinguishable (Obied, 2016). It is supported by
Faiq and Burhanuddin (2016) which stated that dissimilation is the
phenomenon where two sounds in a given word or phrase becomes
less similar to other. In other word, dissimilation is the opposite of
assimilation. Based on that statement, dissimilation can be concluded
as the change in which sound become less similar to one another. Faiq
and Burhanuddin (2016: 2) stated that there are two major reasons
which cause dissimilation. First, it is because of language borrowing.
 Language borrowing is the condition when a word makes its way from
one language to another. Second, it is because of speaker and listener
which avoid being similar because of the difficulties in particular
segment.

c. Deletion
Deletion is the condition when a stressed sound, stressed
syllable or weak consonant is not pronounced (Obied, 2016). In other
word, it could be said that deletion was the loss of sound. Lass (1984:
186 as cited by Obied, 2016) categorized deletion into three categories.
There were aphaeresis, syncope and apocope.

Aphaeresis is the loss of phonemes in the beginning of the word

(Tupa, 2009:297). The example was from the word “Tetapi” became
“Tapi“. From the changes “Tetapi” into “Tapi”, phonemes /t/ and /e/ in
the beginning of the word were omitted. Another example was the
word “Antueng” which meant “di situ” in Indonesian language and
changes into “Ntueng”. From the changes from “Antueng” into
“Ntueng”, the phoneme /a/ in the beginning of the word was omitted.

Syncope is the loss of phonemes in the middle of the word (Tupa,

2009: 297). The example was the word “Baharu” which was changed into
“Baru”. The meaning was the same in Indonesian language. From this
example, the phonemes /h/ and /a/ in the middle of the word “Baharu”
were omitted. Another example was the word “Dahulu” and it was
changed into word “Dulu”. From the changes from “Dahulu” to “Dulu”,
the phonemes /h/ and /u/ in the middle of the word were omitted.

Apocope is the loss of the last phoneme of the word (Tupa, 2009:
297). The example was in word “President” became “Presiden”. The
phoneme /t/ in the last of the word “President” was omitted.

d. Insertion
 Insertion refers to the process of adding the sound (Rinah,
2010:134). The sub-parts of insertion are prothesis, epenthesis
(masogoge) and paragoge (Tupa, 2009: 296).

Prothesis is the added phoneme in the beginning of the word

(Tupa, 2009: 296). The example was the word “Mpu” which was
changed into “empu”. From the changed from “mpu” to “empu”, the
phoneme /e/ was added in the beginning of word “mpu”. Another
example was the word “Mas” which was changed into the word
“Emas”. From the changed from “Mas” into “Emas”, phoneme /e/ was
added in the beginning of the word “Mas”.

Epenthesis (masogoge) is the added phoneme in the middle of

the word (Tupa, 2009: 296). The example was the word “Kapak”
which was changed into “Kampak”. From the change from “Kapak”
into “Kampak”, phoneme /m/ was added in the middle of the word
“Kapak”. Another example was the word “Upama” which was
changed into “Umpama”. From the change from “Upama” into
“Umpama”, phoneme /m/ was added in the middle of word “Upama”.

Paragoge is the last added phoneme of the word (Tupa, 2009:

297). The example was the word “Adi” which was changed into
“Adik”. From the changed from “Adi” into “Adik”, phoneme /k/ was
added in the end of the word “Adi”. Another example was the word
“botol” which was changed into “botolok”. From the changed from
“botol” into “botolok”, phoneme /o/and /k/ were added in the end of
word “botol”.

e. Metathesis
Metathesis is condition in which two segment reverse the
position. In addition, (Obied, 2016). Metathesis is the phonological
process that changes the order of the word Metathesis is also defined
as the reversal of the linear sequences of sound in the word (Hickey,
 2014). The changes of sound in metathesis involved consonant and
vowel sound.

For example:

- Tagalae > talagae (tomato), phoneme //l/ and /g/ are switched
- Naraka > ranaka (hell), phoneme /n/ and /r/ are switched
f. Lenition and Fortition
According to Crowley (1992, 39), Lenition is the change from the
stronger phoneme into a weaker phoneme or it is called as
“weakening” and Fortition is the change from the weaker phoneme
into the stronger phoneme or it is called as “strengthening”. The way
of determining weakening or strengthening was based on the table
which shows the stronger and the weaker phoneme:

Table 2.1 Stronger and Weaker Phoneme

Stronger Weaker
B P
P F
F H
X H
B W
V W
A Ə
I I
D L
S R
K ʔ
The examples of Lenition are:

Bulan > fulan, phoneme /b/ becomes /f/ (weakening)

tapine > tefin, phoneme /p/ becomes /f/ (weakening)
punti > fut, phoneme /p/ becomes /f/ (weakening)

The examples of fortition is:

naïf > naip, phoneme /f/ becomes /p/ (strengthening)

g. Haplology
 Haplology is the change which loss the entire syllable in the
word (Crowley, 1992). Haplology happened if there were two syllables
or more which was identical in phoneme. The identical syllable
sometimes made people difficult to pronounce the word. The example
was the word ‘library’, the pronountiation was [laibri] instead of
[laibrari]. Another example was the word ‘England’ which originally
from word ‘Anglaland’. In order to make easy to pronounce, the
syllable /la/ was omitted.

h. Unpacking
Unpacking means a single original sound changes into a sequence
of two sounds with some features from the original sound (Crowley,
1992). The examples were from phoneme /n/ in French into phoneme
/ŋ/ in Bislama. This was the list of the word.

Table 2.2 French and Bislama Unpacking Transformation

French Bislama
Camion Kamioŋ
Accident Aksidoŋ
Carton Kartoŋ
Calecon Kalsoŋ
Lagon Lagoŋ
Putain Piteŋ
Avance Avoŋ
Bouchon busoŋ

2. Empirical Review

Some researchers had conducted about the research that related

with this study explained as follow:

a) Liang-Chen Lin (2014) had conducted a researched entitled

“Understanding Pronunciation Variations Facing ESL Students”.
This study was about language diversity in the classroom was
caused by background diversity of the students. The article
provided teachers with brief information pertaining to diverse
 population’s pronunciation variations commonly seen as they
strived to teach their ESL students how to articulate English words
and refine the instruction. With a focus on five groups of ESL
students’ major problems in English articulation, this article
provided teachers with brief information pertaining to diverse
population’s pronunciation variations commonly seen as they
strived to teach their ESL students how to articulate English words
and refine the instruction.
b) Kusuma (2015) had conducted a researched entitled “Affixation of
Tigawasa Dialect: A Description Study. This study was about the
study about affixation such as prefixation, infixation and suffixation
in Tigawasa Dialect because Tigawasa village was one of Bali Aga
village.
c) Budasi (2015) had conducted a researched entitled “Pembeda
Fonologis Dan Leksikal Antara Bahada Sawu Di NTT Dan Bahada
Bima Di NTB”. The study was about the application of
comparative method which aimed to describe the phonological and
lexical differences between Bahada Bima (Bm) in NTB and Bahada
Sawu (SW) in NTT. The result of this research was about the
discovery of phoneme such as /ui/, /ia/, /iu/, /io/, /oe/, /eo/, /ie/, /ua/,
/ea/, /
d) Mahendra (2016) had conducted a researched entitled
“Comparing The Phonological System of Manikliyu Dialect And
That of Suter Dialect of The Balinese Language: A Descriptive
Study. This study was about at comparing the phonological system
of Manikliyu Dialect and that of Suter Dialect of the Balinese
language: a descriptive study, which covered the types of vowels
used in Manikliyu Dialect and Suter Dialect of Balinese, the types
of consonants used in Manikliyu Dialect and Suter Dialect of
Balinese and the differences in terms of word pronunciation
between Manikliyu Dialect and Suter Dialect of Balinese. The
results of the data analysis showed that there awere 10 types of
 vowels in Manikliyu Dialect, there are 8 types of vowels in Suter
Dialect, there are 19 types of consonants in Manikliyu dialect, there
were 19 types of consonant in Suter Dialect and there were 62
kinds of words had differences pronunciation in terms of their
vowels and consonants between Manikliyu and Suter Dialects.
e) Stamp, Schembri, Fenlon, Rentelis, Woll and Cormier (2014) had
conducted a researched entitled “Lexical Variation and Change in
British Sign Language”. It was about a corpus-based study
investigating lexical variation in BSL (British Sign Language). The
result was the changing of lexical variation was because of age
grading.
Based on some previous researches which are discussed above, it
could be concluded that this study is the same in terms of the topic of the
study which concerned about comparing the phonological and lexical
variation. Besides that, this study was different the other studies in the
empirical review because this study focused on Balinese language,
especially in terms of Bali Aga and Bali Dataran vialect which show the
uniqueness of Balinese dialect.

I. Research Method
1. Research Design
The design of this research was a descriptive qualitative research.
Qualitative research is described as an unfolding model that occurs in a
natural setting that enables the researcher to develop a level of detail
from high involvement in the actual experiences. In this research, the
researcher would find the data in written form. This study described
about comparing the phonological and lexical variation of Loloan dialect
and Pekutatan dialect of Balinese language.
2. Informant of the Study
The informants of this study were the original people who stayed
along time in Loloan village and Pekutatan village. In which, it must be
30-60 years old, and there was no abnormality in their body and able to
speak Indonesian language fluently (Samarin, 1981). The way of
selecting the informant used simple random sampling. In which the
researcher used purposeful sampling. The informant of this study were 3
informants from Loloan village and 3 informants from Pekutatan village.
These informants were divided into two categories, there are primary
informants and secondary informant. The primary informant has a role as
the key source of information and the people who became the primary
informant must be selected based on the criteria. Because of 3 informants
were used, one person would be the primary informant and the rest would
act as the secondary informants who gave additional information. If the
researcher could not obtain the necessary data from the primary
informant, the researcher obtained the data from these two secondary
informants. If the researcher still could not obtain the data, the research
cancelled.

3. Setting of the Study

The setting of the study are Loloan village and Pekutatan village.
These two villages are located at Banjar district, Buleleng regency.

4. Objects of the Study

The objects of this study were phonological and lexical variations
of Loloan village and Pekutatan village, in Buleleng regency.

5. Procedure of Collecting Data

a. Technique of Collecting Data
i. Observation
Observation was a technique in collecting data that used to observe
spoken language which used naturally by the speakers. The
 observation conducted in Loloan village and Pekutatan village. The
observation that took place in this study was participatory, in which
the researcher entered the field directly to collect the data and
followed every activity in those villages during the observation and
non-participatory, in which the researcher getting helped by people
on those villages to get the data needed. In the observation, the
researcher looked around the village and simultaneously gather the
necessary data based on the real situation in Loloan and Pekutatan
village. In order to get permission to observe deeply about the area,
the researcher delivered the letter of permission to the elder of both
villages. The researcher also maintained the communication
between villagers to build the harmony to make everything running
smoothly.
ii. Recording
In collecting data, the researcher used recording technique to record
all information delivered by the informants in the field. The
usefulness of this technique was to get the language data that was
researched and the pronunciation of particular words.
iii. Note taking
In this study, one of the four techniques was note taking. It was
used to collect any information delivered by the informants by
writing the important aspects which were needed to be written.
iv. Interview
Interview was used in this study to collect the data in verbal
conversation between the researcher and the informant to get the
relevant information for the purpose of the research.
b. Research Instrument
i. Researcher
The researcher took place as the instrument in this study. The
researcher was the main instrument as well as the active instrument
to take the main role in this study. The researcher needed to adapt
 with the situation on the site of this study to gain a successful
process of data collection.
ii. Word List
In this study, word lists was used as the instrument with aimed to
get the data easily and the researcher used word lists as the prior
knowledge about comparing the phonological and lexical system of
Loloan dialect and Pekutatan dialect. The word lists that was used
in this study was Swadesh and Nothofer word lists.
iii. Recorder
Recorder was the tool in this study to collect the data. It was used
as a media of saving data in the form of audio. In this study, mobile
phone was used to record any information given by the informant.

6. Data Analysis
The data in this study was analyzed descriptively and qualitatively in
order to get the result of the investigation. Adopting to Miles and
Huberman (1994), there were four processes in analyzing data.
Figure. 3.1 Miles and Huberman Data Analysis (1994)

Data
collection Data
display

Data
reduction Conclusions:
drawing/verifying

a. Data Collection
In this activity of analyzing the data the researcher started by doing
observation in Loloan and Pekutatan villages in order to know the
situation in the villages. After that, the researcher did the interview to
 the selected informants about the list of Swadesh and Nothofer word
lists. Simultaneously, he did recording during the interview which
aimed to record all the information given by the informants.
Therefore, the obtained data were transcribed.
b. Data Reduction
In the data reduction, the researcher did selecting the main things,
focusing on the important things, using many sources of data to make
the data become effective and suitable with the research problem of
this study, and filtering all of the data itself, in which the useful data
would be selected and the useless data would be ignored.
In this study, the researcher used data reduction after the obtained data
were transcribed. The transcribed data were selected based on the need
of the researcher in this study. After that, he unselected data were
ignored because their irrelevance to the study.
c. Data Display
Data display was the second element or level in Miles and Huberman's
(1994) model of qualitative data analysis. Data display went a step
beyond data reduction to provide "an organized, compressed assembly
of information that permitted conclusion drawing". In this study, the
researcher displayed the data after the data was sorted. The data would
be displayed in the form of descriptively and in the form of table. The
researcher used table in order to make the data organized well.
d. Conclusion Drawing
In this process, after the process of data display, the next step was
conclusion drawing, the researcher would make a temporary
conclusion and check again based on the phenomena that was found.
If the researcher did not satisfy enough with the data, and then
researcher would collect the additional data from the secondary
informant. After all of the data were complete, the researcher
concluded the result of the research. In this study, the researcher will
conclude the data in order to find the data on the problems.
J. References
Ariasih. 2014. The Verb-Forming Affixation in Sidetapa Dialect of Balinese:
A Morphophonemic Analysis. Bali: Ganesha University of Education

Bawa, I.W & Jendra, I.W. (1981). Structure Bahasa Bali. Pusat Pembinaan dan
Pengembangan Bahasa Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan

Budasi. 2015. Pembeda Fonologis dan Leksikal Antara Bahasa Sawu Di NTT dan
Bahasa Bima di NTB. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Pascasarjana Universitas
Gajah Mada.

Bonvillain, N. (2003). Language, Culture and Communication. The meaning

of messages, fourth edition. New Jersey, Prentice Hall

Campbell, L. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction of Historical

Linguistics. Auckland: Oxford University Press

Connine, P. 2006. Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes

and abstractions. The Linguistic Review 23 (2006), 235–245 0167–
6318/06/023-0235 DOI 10.1515/TLR.2006.009

Crowley, T. 1992. An Introduction of Historical Linguistics. Auckland: Oxford

University Press

Diab.2010. A Latent Variable Model for Geographic Lexical Variation. USA:

Mellon University

Dunstan and Jaeger. 2015. Dialect and Influences on the Academic Experiences of
College Students. U.S.A: The Journal of Higher Education, Volume
86, Number 5, September/October 2015, pp. 777-803 (Article)

Faiq, Burhanuddin. 2016. The Process of Dissimilation in English and Arabic: A

Comparative Study. International Journal on Studies in English
Language and Literature (IJSELL) Volume 4, Issue 6, June 2016, PP
1-11 ISSN 2347-3126 (Print) & ISSN 2347-3134 (Online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0406001 www.arcjournals.org

Geeraerts, D. 1994. Varieties of Lexical Variation. Belgium: University of Leuven

Hickey and Raymond. 2014. Phonological Change in English. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hoogervorst. 2014. Youth Culture and Urban Pride, The Sociolinguistics of East
Javanese Slang. Indonesia: Wacana Vol. 15 No. 1 (2014): 104–131
Keijer, I. 2014. Phonetic or Phonological Variation? Learning Surface Forms for
Nasalized Vowels in a Bidirectional OT Environment. Netherland:
Universiteit van Amsterdam

Keraf, G. (1996). Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: Pustaka Indonesia

Liang. C. L. 2014. Understanding Pronunciation Variations Facing ESL Students.

Kingsville: International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Vol. 4, No. 5(1); March 2014

Marioleni. 2014. Communication and dialects. U.S.A: International Journal of

Modern Education Research 2014; 1(5): 103-106Published online
November 20, 2014 (http://www.aascit.org/journal/ijmer)ISSN: 2375-
3781

Marjohan, Suarnajaya, Seken, Budasi. 2015. POLA VARIASI BAHASA

BALI:

McMahon, April. 2002. An Introduction to English Phonology. UK: Edinburgh

University Press

Miles, A., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition.
Newbury Park.

Nordquist, R. (2010). About.com. Grammar & Composition. Retrieved from:

http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/languageterm.htm

Obied, Iman Mingher. 2016. Phonological Rule. University of Babylon: College

of Basic Education.

Rinah, Noeliharisoa Jasmine. 2010. Hubungan Kekerabatan Bahasa Malagasy dan

Bahasa Maanyan. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University

Ristati. 2010. Phonemic Assimilation of Dayak Ngaju Language. The 7th

International Seminar on Austronesian – Non-Austronesian Language
and Literature. ISSN: 978-602-1586-39-6

Roach, P. 1983. English Phonetics and Phonology. UK: Cambridge University

Press

Satyawati, Jayantini, Purnawati, Adnyani, and Koroh. 2015. Exploration,

Explanation, and Interpretation on the Language Phenomenon for the
Development ofAustronesian and Non austronesian Linguistic and
Literature. Bali: Udayana University

Setiawan, Irma. 2010. Variasi Leksikon Bahada Sasak Dalam Konteks

Keberagaman Bahada Lokal Sebagai Akar Bahada Nasional. The 7th
International Seminar on Austronesian – Non-Austronesian Language
and Literature. ISSN: 978-602-1586-39-6
Stamp, Schembri, Fenlon, Rentelis, Woll, Cormier. 2014. “Lexical Variation and
Change in British Sign Language”. U.K: PLoS ONE 9(4): e94053.
doi: 10. 1371/journal.pone.0094053

Surya. 2013. The Phonological System of The Balinese Used In Sangsit Dialect: a
Synchronic Study. Bali: Ganesha University of Education

Tupa, N. 2009. Gejala Bahada dalam Bahada Makasar. Makasar: Balai Bahada
Ujung Pandang.

Mahendra.Y .2016. “Comparing The Phonological System of Manikliyu Dialect

And That of Suter Dialect of The Balinese Language: A Descriptive
Study. Bali: Ganesha University of Education

Wahyuni, K. S. 2015. Affixation of Banyuseri Dialect: a descriptive study. Bali:

Ganesha University of Education

Wicaksana, D. 2017. The Phonological And Lexical Variation Of Lemukih And

Galungan Dialect Viewed From Age Differences: An Analysis Of
Socio-Dialectology. Bali: Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha