Documenting the Rice Lexicon of the Dayak Ngaju Language: An Ethnolinguistic Study for Preserving Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Heritage in Central Kalimantan
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: The rice lexicon of the Dayak Ngaju language represents not only agricultural vocabulary but also indigenous ecological knowledge and cultural heritage that are increasingly vulnerable to language shift and changing agricultural practices. Despite its cultural significance, systematic documentation of rice-related lexical items in the Dayak Ngaju language remains limited. Aim: This study aims to document the rice lexicon of the Upper Katingan variety of the Dayak Ngaju language and to analyze the lexical and cultural meanings embedded in these lexical items through an ethnolinguistic approach. Method: Employing a descriptive qualitative design, the research was conducted in Tumbang Sanamang, Tumbang Jiga, and Tumbang Kanja villages, Katingan Regency, Central Kalimantan. Data were collected from six native speakers, including farmers, community leaders, and a Damang (customary leader), through semi-structured interviews, field observations, and documentation. The documented lexical items were transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and analyzed through ethnolinguistic interpretation supported by field evidence. The study documented nine rice-related lexical items: binyi, parei, kajugu, eta, apis, bunyer, bulu, behas, and kenta. Result and Discussions: The findings reveal that these lexical items form an interconnected lexical system representing the traditional rice cultivation cycle, from seed selection and cultivation to harvesting, post-harvest processing, and food preparation. Beyond their lexical meanings, the documented lexicons encode indigenous agricultural knowledge, sustainable resource management practices, ritual traditions, and culinary heritage that continue to shape the cultural identity of the Dayak Ngaju community. The integration of phonetic documentation, lexical analysis, and ethnolinguistic interpretation demonstrates that documenting culturally specific vocabulary contributes not only to regional language preservation but also to safeguarding indigenous knowledge and intangible cultural heritage. The findings provide valuable resources for language documentation, revitalization programs, cultural education, and future digital documentation of the Dayak Ngaju language.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Any article on the copyright is retained by the author(s).
- The author grants the journal, right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share work with an acknowledgment of the work authors and initial publications in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of published articles of work (eg, post-institutional repository) or publish it in a book, with acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their websites) prior to and during the submission process, as can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
References
REFERENCES
Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (Eds.). (2022). The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages. Cambridge University Press.
Berhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2024). Ngaju. In Ethnologue: Languages of the world (27th ed.). SIL International. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/nij
Berkes, F. (2018). Sacred ecology (4th ed.). Routledge.
Duranti, A. (2017). Linguistic anthropology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Fill, A., & Penz, H. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics. Routledge.
Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford University Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2006). Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? Dalam J. Gippert, N. P. Himmelmann, & U. Mosel (Eds.), Essentials of language documentation (hlm. 1–30). Mouton de Gruyter.
Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2023). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (26th ed.). SIL International.
Mihing, B. (2003). Kamus Bahasa Dayak Ngaju–Indonesia. Palangka Raya: Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah.
Nurhayati, E., & Pranowo. (2024). Kajian Etnolinguistik terhadap Kosakata Pertanian Tradisional sebagai Upaya Pelestarian Bahasa Daerah. Jurnal Litera, 23(2), 210–225.
Palmer, G. B. (2017). Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. University of Texas Press.
Sallabank, J. (2021). Language revitalisation and language documentation. Language Documentation & Conservation, 15, 1–25.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
__________ (2024). Cultural Linguistics and Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Language as a Repository of Cultural Conceptualizations. International Journal of Language and Culture, 11(1), 1–18.
Sibarani, R. (2004). Antropolinguistik: Antropologi linguistik dan linguistik antropologi. Penerbit Poda.
Stibbe, A. (2021). Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by (2nd ed.). Routledge.
________. (2024). Ecolinguistics and the Preservation of Ecological Knowledge in Indigenous Communities. Language Sciences, 102, 101645.
Suharyo, S., & Wibowo, A. (2025). Leksikon Pertanian Tradisional dalam Perspektif Etnolinguistik sebagai Cerminan Kearifan Lokal Masyarakat Jawa. Jurnal Kandai, 21(1), 45–60.
UNESCO. (2021). World report of languages: Towards a global assessment framework for language vitality. UNESCO Publishing.