skip to main content


*Sherly Novita  -  Faculty of Humanities, Sumatera Utara University, Indonesia
Dwi Widayati  -  Faculty of Humanities, Sumatera Utara University, Indonesia
Bahagia Tarigan  -  Faculty of Humanities, Sumatera Utara University, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2020 HUMANIKA under

Citation Format:

This research is based on a theory in Historical Comparative Linguistics. This theory is also called a diachronic theory, which involves the analysis of the form and regularity of changes in common languages such as those accompanied by sound changes. The objects of the research are Teochew (TC), Hakka (HK), and Cantonese (CO) dialects used in Medan city. These three dialects are categorized into the Sino-Tibetan family. Sino-Tibetan (ST) as one of the largest language families in the world, with more first-language speakers than even Indo-Europeans, is having more than 1.1 billion speakers of Sinitic (the Chinese dialects) constitute the world's largest speech community. According to STEDT (Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus), Chinese is considered as a Sino-Tibetan language family. The research method used is the qualitative method. The data collection method and technique used to refer to the conversation method with the techniques of recording and writing. The data were analyzed using the qualitative method of glottochronology. The result of the research shows that TC, HK, and CO were related in terms of sound correspondences and were separated thousands of years ago. TC and HK were related and both corresponded identically one similar vowel, one similar consonant, and one different phoneme, and one similar syllable. TC and CO were related and both corresponded to one similar vowel, one similar vocalic cluster, one similar consonant, and one different phoneme, and one similar syllable. HK and CO were related and both corresponded identically, one similar vowel, one similar consonant, one different phoneme, one different vocalic cluster, and one similar syllable. From all the findings and discussion in this research, the writer has concluded that HK and CO are the closest dialects among the three compared dialects.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: sound correspondence; glottochronology; Teochew; Hakka; Cantonese

Article Metrics:

  1. Bauer, R.S. and Benedict, P.K. (2011). Modern Cantonese Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 16
  2. Bauer, R.S. and Wakefield, J.C. (2019). The Cantonese Language. New York: Routledge, pp. 33
  3. Bynon, T. (1979). Historical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University, pp. 54-61
  4. Cheung, Y.M. (2011). Vowels and tones in Mei Xian Hakka: An acoustic and perceptual study. Thesis. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Retrieved 19th May, 2019 from
  5. Crowley, T. (1992). An Introduction to Historical Linguistics 1st Edition. New Zealand: Oxford University Press, pp. 93
  6. Dardanila, Sibarani, R. Widayati, D. and Mbete, A.M. (2015). Cognates among the Karo, Alas, and Gayo languages. Dissertation. Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara. Retrieved 13th April, 2019 from
  7. Dawis, A. (2009). The Chinese of Indonesia and Their Search for Identity: The Relationship between Collective Memory and the Media. New York: Cambria, pp. 76-83
  8. Fahey, B. (2004). Mayan: a Sino-Tibetan language? A comparative study. Sino-Platonic Papers, No. 130 February 2004. pp. 1-61
  9. Haugen, E. (1972). Dialect, Language, Nation in Sociolinguistics. New York: Penguin Book
  10. Hock, H.H. (1988). Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Hockett, pp. 63
  11. Keraf, G. (1984). Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, pp. 121-128
  12. Keraf, G. (1990). Linguistic Bandingan Tipologis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
  13. Keraf, G. (1996). Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, pp. 79
  14. Kitikanan, P. (2013). The Thai consonant adaptation in Teochew loanwords. IPHD student in Phonetics and Phonology, June 2013. pp. 108-128.doi:
  15. Kridalaksana, H. (2008). Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama, pp. 116
  16. Langacker, R.W. (1972). Fundamentals of Linguistics Analysis. Sandiego: University of California, pp. 329-330
  17. Li, F.K. (1971). 上古音研究 Shànggǔyīn yánjiù. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 9. pp. 1-61.doi:
  18. Mahsun. (1995). Dialektologi Diakronis: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University, pp. 29
  19. Matisoff, J.A. (2016). Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus. Berkeley: University of California. Retrieved 22nd May, 2019 from
  20. Meng, H. Zee, E. and Lee, W.S. (2007). A contrastive phonetic study between Cantonese and English to predict salient mispronunciation by Cantonese learners of English. SEEM: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, February 2007. pp. 2-8
  21. Sagart, L. (2002). Gan, Hakka, and the formation of Chinese dialects. HAL-SHS: Dialect Variations in Chinese. pp. 129-154
  22. Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University
  23. Veniranda, Y. (2016). Oral and nasal vowels in Pontianak Teochew. LLT Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2. pp. 107-124
  24. Widayati, D. (2016). Vocal and consonant PAN features in Nias and Sigulai languages. International Journal of Linguistics, Language, and Culture (IJLLC), Vol. 2 No. 4, November 2016. pp. 74-82.doi:
  25. Widayati, D. and Lubis, R. (2018). The inherited Proto-Austronesian vowel phonemes in Karo language. The International Journal of Academic Research and Development, Vol. 3 No. 4, July 2018. pp. 5-7.doi:
  26. Zang, M.H. Yan, S. and Pan, W.Y. (2019). Phylogenetic evidence for Sino-Tibetan origin in Northern China in the Late Neolithic. Nature, Vol. 569 No. 7754. pp. 1-4.doi:
  27. Zee, E. (1991). Chinese (Hong Kong Cantonese). Journal of International Phonetic Association, Vol. 21 No. 1, June 1991. pp. 1-39.doi:

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-03-02 13:50:54

No citation recorded.