35
thing is certain, they have finally admitted, that both L1 and L2 are important potential sources of difficulty 1971: 5.
Now comes the issue of prediction. Proponents of CA generally complain that critics of CA misunderstand the meaning of ‘ to predict’ in contrastive analysis.
Therefore, staunch advocates of CA such as Baradja consider it necessary to explain that ‘to predict’ means no more than ‘to show with some explanation what, where,
and why certain areas in the target language are likely to be potential trouble spots for a learner. To predict, Baradja ascertains, is not intended to mean ‘to show with
certainty’. Thus, in making a prediction, it is always possible that an analyst can anytime make a mistake. Fortunately, the Indonesian linguist and English teacher
adds, a linguistic science has made so much progress that it can nowadays help a contrastive analyst to attend to the phonological problems more effectively.
The brief discussion above may have made it clear that CA is still useful and relevant in a foreign language teaching. This is precisely the reason why the present
writer insists on conducting a CA of English and Nataia phonology in spite of the controversy.
2.2 Review of Related Studies
The present study marks the beginning of a completely new era for Nataia because this is the very first time the local language has been formally
discussed and set down in writing. It is futile, therefore, for anyone to search for previous researches, theses or dissertations that are related to the study of the
local language. However, since the present work touches on the “potential difficulties for Nataia speakers in learning English phonology”, it seems
36
worthwhile to refer to preceding studies that compare and contrast English with some other languages.
One of the previous studies worth mentioning is the Contrastive Analysis of Selected Patterns of the Noun Phrases and Verb Phrases of English and
Indonesian. This is the title of a dissertation written in 1971 by M . F. Baradja, a well-seasoned Indonesian linguist and an English teacher. In the
introduction to his scientific work which deals mainly with syntax, Baradja provides an example of a problem in the phonological contrast between English
and Bahasa Indonesia. How to pronounce correctly the final consonant [b] in such words as sob, grab, and rib, Baradja argues, is generally a problem for an
Indonesian learning English. An Indonesian, he notices, also finds it hard to pronounce correctly the consonant sound [d] in words such as bed, rid, and read.
Another difficulty, he notes, is for an Indonesian to pronounce correctly the sound [g] in such words as bag, hug, and dig.
One might be tempted to make Baradja object of ridicule for the above statement which at first glance sounds rather simplistic. Somehow,
the temptation seems well-grounded: Bahasa Indonesia also has the three
consonants in its inventory in such words as babu, lebaran, derita, sedia, gejala and jelaga. However, upon closer observation, one finally has to acknowledge
that Baradja is completely right. The sounds [b], [d] and [g] of Bahasa Indonesia, as the three pairs of words in the examples above show, occupy the initial
positions in the words babu, derita, and gejala. They occupy the medial positions in the words lebaran, sedia and jelaga. However, they never occupy the final
positions of words of Bahasa Indonesia. This simple fact, the linguist asserts, is PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
the reason why the final voiced stops of English are potentially troublesome for an Indonesian learning English phonology.
Baradja’s assertion that the position of a phoneme in a word makes a difference is certainly very relevant to the present study of English and Nataia
phonology. As Oko Utu text emphatically reveals, Nataia is a specific vocalic language in which every one of its syllables always ends in a vowel phoneme.
Theoretically, therefore, Nataia speakers learning English phonology may find it difficult to pronounce English consonant sounds which occupy the final position
of a word. It is to be noted that there are contributions from two other linguists, P.
Moore 1980 and S. Djawanai 1983, that should also be highly appreciated. Moore wrote Ngadh’a Phonology, a paper that he submitted to the Second
Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages. Djawanai wrote A Ngadha Text Tradition: The Collective Mind of the Ngadha People, Flores in which Ngadha
phonology receives ample discussion. The descriptions by the two language scholars, especially by Djawanai who is a native speaker of Ngadha,
have certainly shed illuminating light on the present study. The reason is that Nataia is a member of the Ngadha-Lio language grouping. Thus, a
good phonetic and phonological description on one select sample of the group such as Ngadha practically amounts to a revelation of the whole group. This
statement is in no way an exaggeration. The present writer has to openly admit that the findings of this work are in many wa ys similar to those of
Djawanai’s. Perhaps, the main difference lies only in the number of consonant phonemes of Ngadha and that of Nataia. To the list of phonemes
