b. they are small b. the segmented tips
of the feet
c. they are like fingers c. they are shorter
than fingers
d. these parts of
someone’s feet can
move if this
someone wants
d. there are five of
them on each foot
The interpretation of ‘toes’ in English refers to the
shape and the movement, whereas in Acehnese it
refers to the shape and the quantity. In terms of
shape, ‘toes’ in English are interpreted by expressing
that they are small (point b) and has a finger like
shape (point c). In Acehnese, the interpretation of
‘toes’ is found in points (b) and (c), that is, the toes
are the segmented tips of the feet and they are
shorter than fingers. In English, the interpretation of
‘toes’ is made clear by declaring that people can
move this part of the body as the wish (point d),
while Acehnese clarifies it by referring to the
quantity, that there are five of them on each foot(d).
4 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicate that the reference
of the body parts in Acehnese is relatively the same
as English, which refers to (1) the location or
position where the body parts are located, (2) the
shape of the body parts, (3) the density of the body
parts, (4) motion of body parts, and (5) the function
of the body parts. The different interpretations of the
body parts between Acehnese and English are found
only in the description of the interpretation of the
limbs. This proves that universal semantics apply to
Acehnese. The semantic basis in typology does have
subtle differences but the specific manifestations of
language from the universal category share the same
core. The concept of human body is closely related
to the
semantic organization of human body parts. In
addition, it is evidence that the name of the body
parts in many languages are similar in semantics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank semantic experts at
the Indonesian Education Department of Syiah
Kuala University and the Linguistics Department of
University of Sumatera Utara who have supported us
to complete this article.
REFERENCES
Abzianidze, L., Johan Bos., 2017. Paper Presented
at International Conference on Computational
Semantics, 3-7.
Behrens, Leila., 2010. Research Centre of
Linguistic Typology 4-5.
Daud, B., Mark Durie., 1999. Pacific Linguistics,
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,
Volume 151, 11-13.
Evans, N., 2010. SemanticTypologyChapter 23, 504-
505.
Fintel, K.V., Matthewson, L., 2008. The Linguistic
Review25 139–141.
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., 1994. John Benjamins
Publishing Company3.
Goddard, C., Wierzbicka, A., 2014. Studies in
Language 2014, 38(1), 90–93.
KoHeejeong., Alex Perovic., Tania Ionin,, Ken
Wexler., 2008. Proceedings of the 9th
Generative Approaches to Second Language
Acquisition Conference 119.
Levinson, S. C., 2006. Language Sciences28 222.
Miles M.B, Huberman, A.M., 1992. A Sourcebook
of Nee Methods 73.
Mulyadi., 2010. Linguistika Vol. 17, No. 33, 169.
Patton, M.Q., Cochran, M., 2007. School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine2.
Reddy, S., Siva Reddy., Oscar T, Slav P, Mark S,
MirellaL., 2017. universaldependencies.org 4-8.
Riemer, Nick., 2010 Cambridge University Press
390-392.
Shopen, T., 2007. University Press136.
Tamm, Maria Koptjevskaja., 2017. The Routledge
Handbook of Semantics7-9.
Vanhatalo, U., HeliTissari., Anna Idström., 2014.
SKY Journal of Linguistics 27 67–94.
Wierzbicka, A., 2007. Language Sciences vol: 29,
18-25
Youn, H., Logan Sutton, Eric Smith, Cristopher
Moore, Jon F. Wilkins, Ian Maddieson, William
Croft, and Tanmoy Bhattacharya., 2015.
Psychological And Cognitive Sciences 1-6
.