LEGO-LEGO OF ALOR PEOPLE IN EAST NUSA TENGGARA, INDONESIA:

THE EXPRESSION OF ANCESTOR’S EXPERIENCE AND LANGUAGE

MAINTENANCE
Katubi
Research Center for Society and Culture
Indonesian Institute of Sciences

Abstract
Lego-lego is pantun (an oral traditional poetry) sung to accompany a circle dance done
massively in Alor-Pantar Island, East Nusa Tenggara. All ethnic groups in Alor-Pantar know
lego-lego as one of their traditional arts. Initially the medium of expression of lego-lego is
ritual language in the form of archaic languages. In further development, lego-lego is spoken
with languages from various ethnic in Alor-Pantar Island in a poetic manner. Nowadays
many young generation in Alor-Pantar do not understand the use of archaic language in lego-
lego anymore.

In fact there are two papers that discussed lego-lego, namely Bouman (1943) and Rodemeier
(1993). But they do not discuss specifically lego-lego of Kui people and lego-lego as a
culture practice in their language environment too.They more concentrate on lego-lego in
general based on the place that is associated with the social function and the social structure.
Meanwhile, Rodemeier talks about lego-lego in the rites of death. By using performance
ethnography through field research, this paper aims 1) to describe lego-lego of Kui people in
their cultural context;2) to explore the maintenance of lego-lego in their language ecology.

Key words: lego-lego, Kui, Alor, oral tradition, language ecology

Introduction
This paper discusses about lego-lego as one of oral traditions of Kui people in Alor, in the
context of a language which is threatened with extinction. I would like to say that this paper
is not the final result of a research, but this is the beginning of a research on lego-lego in Kui
language in order to document and revitalize Kui language.

It is important to make a study on the oral tradition of Kui people since Kui people do not
have written system and there is no written paper about them. Therefore, Kui people use oral
language to communicate and persevere the intangible heritage. Theoretically, Robins
(1989:490) states that in the field research, a researcher of linguistic anthropology like or not,
has to deal with all aspects of language; for example oral texts. Oral texts are described as
some utterances which are not the researcher’s direct responses. Some oral texts, whatever
1  

 
their formats are, express a part of their speaker’s culture and tradition. Traditional stories
and songs, mythology, group history, some utterances in traditional and religious ceremonies,
and verbal arts are examples of materials which can be uniquely collected and analyzed by a
linguist. The significance of oral texts, even can be far exceeded its linguistic boundary
(Robins 1989: 493). The statement means that the analysis of oral text not only can be used to
describe language system, but also to comprehend their culture through a study on both
micro-linguistic and macro-linguistic, even interdisciplinary.

Considering the close relationship between oral tradition safeguarding and language,
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) said that one of the
safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage was the actualization of oral tradition, including
language as an intangible cultural heritage. Thus, the effort of saving local languages cannot
put aside the oral tradition in the local language community.

Based on a research result in East Africa done by Mhando (2008: 39), a close connection
between saving or persevering oral tradition and local languages has been found. The reason
is a language extinction means an extinction of unique language characteristic. Finally, it will
result on not only decreasing, but vanishing oral tradition. It could impact on local sensibility
in the community.

Beside conveying historical experience, language arranges, perseveres and shows a

sensibility of different local languages. That is the importance of revitalizing and persevering
local languages. One of the methods is by documenting and studying on oral tradition.

There are two previous papers about lego. Those papers connect directly with lego-lego,
although they do not discuss about Kui people’ s lego-lego. First, Bouman (1943) writes “De
Aloreesche Dansplaat,” in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-
Indie, Deel 102,3de/4de Afl. (1943), page 481-500. This paper is about Alor’s ethnography in
its era so that primitive term in some aspects is used by Bouman. Before discussing about
lego-lego, Bouman describes geographically characteristic of Alor islands. There are some
ethnic groups, language classifications, and the life of Alor people who depended too much
on nature.

2  

 
Bouman explains that at the beginning lego-lego was the show of respect given to
ancestor’spirit, so that it was sacred. However, the ritual meaning of lego-lego is ineffective
now. This is a process which happens because of three matters; (1) Islamic influence, (2)
Christianizing, (3) land cultivation. Bouman describes lego-lego with its places, their
connection with village opening, and its function as relationship signs.

Second, Rodemeier (1993) writes “Lego-lego Plattzt und Naga-Darstellung.” This writing is
a magister thesis in Munchen University, Germany. It discusses about Alor’s lego-lego in
death rituality. Therefore, it talks about ritual dance, instruments, the instrument location
(gong and moko), dancers, ritual place, and lego-lego participants. Some of them are
connected with ancestor’s spirit and journey, mythology, genealogy, and also some
supernatural power which cannot be seen in sacred places.

My paper, in this case, is different with those two papers because I discuss about lego-lego as
a performance which takes a position in the language of Kui people. After that, this paper
talks about some effort in persevering lego-lego oral tradition in order to persevering Kui
language.

Kui People and Their Spreading

At the beginning Kui native speaker lived in Lerabaing, which means ‘King’s village’ as the
first village. In this village Kui ancestor’s remains have been kept, some of them are ship
fragments which is believed to be used by their ancestor to reach the village, a mosque which
was founded in 1600, and the ex house of Kui King. The logical analysis of Kui people about
Lerabaing ‘King’s village’ as a public area could be used to reconstruct main component of
individual identity and group, and to comprehend how every group interact in economics
cooperation, political hierarchy, jobs distribution and ritual assignment.

Now Kui people are spread in three different areas; namely, Lerabaing, Buraga-Bombaru,
and in Moru. These three villages are in the area of South-West Alor District, Alor Regency.
In Lerabaing as the old village there are only 20 houses left now or 119 people. The rest are
in Bombaru-Buraga 78 houses or 315 people and in Moru there are 87 houses or 399 people.
Thus, the number of people in Kui are only around 833 now.

3  

 
Unfortunately, not all Kui people master Kui language. The research result shows the
movement of Kui language into Alor Malay. Kui people in the group of 1-25 years and 26-50
years do not use Kui language in communication among their family, neighborhood, and
friends. Besides, language transmission in Kui language community hasn’t run very well
anymore. The high number of mixed marriage creates more speed of Kui language movement
(Katubi 2011).

Kui people now live in multiethnic. The lives of Kui people which are spread in three areas
are mixed up with people of Klon, Abui, and Hamap. There is a lingua franca which is used
for communication among Kui people, Alor Malay. Therefore, some of Kui people live in
diglosic circle, that is the language choice of some various domains because their ecology
circle might choose a language.

Kui people classify themselves into four groups which they call lelang. In Alor Malay it is
translated into ‘suku’ while in Indonesian it can be translated into ‘klan’. The four lelang in
Kui are Ler (King klan), Kuilelang, Kaletowas, and Malangkabat. Every lelang has its own
task. Ler (King tribe) has a responsibility to manage a village. Kuilelang owns a task to
accompany King tribe to give advice about government regulations. Kaletowas gets a task to
guard security or war troop. Malangkabat handles religious tasks. Social structure in Kui
people is set up from mythology of Kui people establishment. Then, the social structure
influences other aspects; such as, marriage rules and in performing oral tradition like lego-
lego and luire.

Lego-lego: The Analysis of Term and Genre

Lego-lego in Kui language is called dar, which means ‘song’. That is different from towen
which means ‘dancing’. Therefore, lego-lego in oral tradition of Kui people is classified as
folk genre (folk song). Kui people define lego-lego as a song for accompanying circle dance.

As a folk song, lego-lego is musical genre based on ethnic. It is frequently performed in

small .performing concept which is described by Titon (1992: 168), lego-lego as a folk song
can be assumed as a performance, not just a song text.

4  

 
Lego-lego as a folk song reflects Kui people experiences all together which share the history
of Kui people, their social status among some clans which have formed them, cultural values,
ethnic heritage, affiliates of religion (for example an oral traditional poetry of a child whose
together.

Lego-lego as a folk song is an event when Kui people all together share their experiences in
various themes. Most of Kui people take an active part, interact as listeners, actors, singers,
and dancers because lego-lego wants all people to be active to sing and dance. This is not like
in Western art performances. They separate between actors and audiences. In lego-lego,
people are able to be in and out during performances.

The Setting: Time and Place of Lego-lego

The time of lego-lego performances cannot be decided because they are not scheduled like
formal festival. It usually depends on the existence of event or not to perfom lego-lego, such
as; wedding ceremony, building up a mosque, winner celebration in competition, harvest fiest,
and etc. Watching its performance, lego-lego for Kui people is a fun performance. Thus, there
is no lego-lego for funeral and other sad events.

Lego-lego can be done within some hours until late at night; from evening until morning,
even till the other noon. The event of lego-lego starts with an opening which called dartuki. It
is an announcement that there will be lego-lego in the evening or at night. It starts with
beating a gong and drums three times which is called sarosok. The musical instruments in
lego-lego are two gongs (bubu) and drums (padang).

According to Bauman (1992: 45), one of the main direction which showing a performance is
breaking situation, a stage. In the past a stage of lego-lego for Kui people is the universe with
mesbah in the center. It is a stone as a place of worship to ancestors. Participants in lego-lego
are singing and dancing around mesbah. However, after the arrival of Islamic Religion (also
Christianity and Chatolic for other ethnic groups), the stage of lego-lego performance is
spacious place for lego-lego has mass characteristics and some parts have never used mesbah
as the center. It causes lego-lego usually to be performed by the sea, in wide yard, even in
front of mosques with spacious yard. Not like the stage of lego-lego, the stage of other
performances does need a truly high artificial stage. The universe is a stage for Kui people.
5  

 
The Participants of Lego-lego and The Social Structure of Kui People
Participant, both men and women, hold their hands together through their ring fingers and
form a designs of its clan. It is forbidden to wear wrong designes of clothes among the groups
because it will create a social sanction.

The first person becoming a pole in forming lego-lego center is called surlel while the last
person closing is alapelel. Another participant has to slip in surlel and alapelel. They become
the main roles of lego-lego as the starting point and the ending. Participants are not allowed
to enter without slipping them in. The participant becoming surlel ought to be from kaletowas
while apalel ought to be from malangkabat. People from other clans are not allowed to be in
their positions. That is based on the mythology of Kui people and task distribution in each
clan. Katewos clan is given a task to be surlel or leader in lego-lego because structurally
Katewos clan gets a task the War Leader. On the other hand, Malangkabat clan takes a role as
alapelel or circle closing in lego-lego because Malangkabat clan become the War Troop in
outside circle.

Not every person, even Kaletowas clan can be surlel. It is inherited to younger or older
brother or children. However, all need “proper value” which is in Kui language called unkur.
It fits with requirements and is proper. The person who will inherit as a surlel has been tried
to lead lego-lego. He is watched out by the heir. If it seems proper, the role of leader will be
given to the heir. But, if it does not, the heir will find another person who still comes from
kaletowas clan to lead lego-lego as a trial.

The above exposition tells us that singing in lego-lego becomes cultural practice. It has a
functional implication in distributing clan tasks and collective narration of the history.

The Lyrics in Lego-Lego

The opening song of lego-lego is called ilero. Then, it is continued by a song of content
called buidesi,and ended by a closing song, sele-sele kai. The differences among the three lay
on sound of drums, songs and steps (ulak) of dance. Sounds in ilero, especially in drums, is
made quite multiplied,while in buidesi the sounds of drums seem to be normal. Besides, in
sele-selekai the sounds are more rapidly made in order to encourage the spirit and expose
6  

 
how they are happy , since they have been successful in performing lego-lego. The
differences in the songs among the three are in the content and the number of songs. The
songs in ilero are mostly five songs only. Its content is to persuade people to enter the circle
together because lego-lego is going to start immediately. The songs in buidesi can reach 15-
20 songs. They consist of various content, from advice to the journey of their ancestors.
Moreover, in sele-sele kai there is only one song sung.

The lyrics which are sung in lego-lego; such as,

Bui desi tani mai bala tani mai

Ye yeri nangal goi yeri nangal goi
Push the betel chewing pan quickly push
Laughing, why laughing

Mei gargi nen gargi asal bui bangi

Bui bangi liki nanga ua liki nanga
Husband in the house and wife in the house ask how they feel
Ask their feeling each other, not being angry

E palin detimasi awe punu laki

Punu laki noka sinde nange awe punulaki
Sign in your eyes let me help to show the way
Show the way to succeed or not let me show first

Mei gargi nen gargi lai usalaka

Usalaka laka bei egupuntaney
Wife in the house and husband in the house help each other
In fact you’re there let’s help each other

Masin lake puna laki mura bata kela

Kitan laki migamani tena migamani
With the Masin language actually it is a good story
But as the r who the representative circulate the ranks among us

Ko bus manaka noka miarang gosisi

Mira sei gomola kuli gomola
Having already opened the soft screwpine mat to wait for
But the representative who sits on the throne isn’t willing to descend

E yol mei setan oa bangan gei

E il ela o gataka nanga
A girl is not good to choose another man
You don’t know the history of your life
7  

 
Pitawom ta wong tamiri muru tata nian
Kowa-kowa ugapai tai susa bata
Mutual love creates a safe family
But, if it is forced, of course, it will create problems

E tawon non jalga lak targi mia

Balo laki mai balo ubagibi nanga
Two people have put an agreement
Please don’t care of whoever are trying to influence

Bura bata-bata mia onatan manesi

Lamu bata-bata la owa nomasori
In open area even you dare to hold my hand
Wherever we meet you dare to talk to me

Ol non dela masi desa roko pana

Ol moi kana kolo dosa gapu nanga
A boy who is fairly skin, handsome and rich
A girl who is sweet and poor

Mei pak ganaya mei lake usalaka

Mei dali Sali mei lake gowananga
A village girl surely has several traditions
But, a girl from outside has not

Kena kapa tuku nuku ai morin tani

Morin tani tegawari tani tegawari
Every gift even a piece of cloth should be well-kept
If it is well-kept, it means knowing relatives

Siri mai ona pata welu mibirogi

Mibarogi laki yai sei laki yai
Every secret is being whispered
A good whisper is forbidden to share

Mara kare koi aloma aloma punu regi meli

Otapata punuta isi punuta
Every good advice given should be kept in the heart
All good advice should be kept in the heart and applied in daily life

Every change from one song to another is followed by changing footsteps following the
sounds of drums. The lyrics in the song content some advice and also the story of their
ancestor’s journey , which is inherited from generation to other generation. Thus, the lyrics of
lego-lego in traditional ceremonies are fixed lyrics. Those are traditional lego-lego. However,
it allows to create new lyrics which are adjusted with situation, such as; welcoming guests, so

8  

 
a lyric concerning with the guests are created.The new lyrics are created collectively by some
people, so that there is no individual creation entering the lyrics of lego-lego.
The words using in lego-lego lyrics are chosen words being assumed to posses esthetical
values. They are different from the daily language. For example; tempat sirih in Kui language
is buibakal, while in lego-lego it is buidesi tanimai.

The Recent Condition of Lego-lego of Kui People

It said that to understand the transmission process and the ability of recent generation perform
lego-lego, people hold Focus Group Discussion (FGD). All information in Lerabaing, Buraga,
and also Moru when FGD held, is reported that young generation under 20 years old are not
able to sing lego-lego lyrics anymore. If they are in the center of lego-lego, they follow the
old people to sing. On the other hand, if they are asked to do lego-lego, they cannot do it. The
young generation is considered not to be able to sing lego-lego, except; the old people.

In accordance with some information, the recent young generation loves “joget” with single
keyboard more or loud music which is played in the taper recorder. There hasn’t been
understood the reasons why they shift their interests.

Moreover, some young generation start to compare between lego-lego and joget which is
connected with Islamic religion lessons; especially, it is forbidden for men to touch women
not their muhrim. In this aspect, for some young Kui people lego-lego does not fit with
Islamic religion because this performance lets them make a circle and touch each other, in
this case, the same sex or different ones. When people make a circle in the dancing and
singing, all lego-lego participants connect their each other ring fingers with the body postures
close to each other.

of view touching different sex in lego-lego is forbidden. On the other hand, tradition comes
before the religious lessons of Islam and acted as a part of inherited tradition.

That controversy and also the stopping transmission of lego-lego to the young people and
children, brings lego-lego to be possessed by the old people only. This condition can be
detected as the ending of maintaining one of oral traditions of Kui people. It is just like the
ending of maintaining their language.
9  

 
In fact, this clog of the transmission of oral tradition of Kui people doesn’t only exist in lego-
lego, but also in folk stories, children songs and games.
There is no child recognizing them anymore. Moreover, some old young people do not
remember anymore.

Transmission and Learning

Actually there is no formal procedure performed by Kui people to transmit lego-lego to the
younger generation because for the Kui people, lego-lego is a social activity and cultural
practices. Children and adolescents learn lego-lego through observation and imitation. On the
sidelines of the implementation of the lego-lego, children try to practice lego-lego. Usually
there will be adults who pay attention and correct if errors occur. The question is whether
they know the meaning of each verse is sung in a lego-lego? Because lego-lego using archaic
language, many of the Kui people themselves who do not know what it means, but they can
sing. I found a few people over the age of 50 years who is very active singing, both solo and
together, when implementing lego-lego, but they do not know the meaning of the song.

So, the steps being taken in general is well observed the adults who are doing lego-lego;
remember, both the words and melody, trying with peers or older adults; getting feedback
from adults lego-lego knows well, and try again. Sometimes, children practice skills in the
back loop when the adults were doing lego-lego.

Oral Tradition of Lego-lego and Language Maintenance

My preliminary research show that there is indication of a language shift of the Kui people,
whether they live in Wakapsir, Buraga & Bombaru and Moru. The 1-25 year age group of
Kui people have started do not use Kui language in the family domain. In fact, in
neighborhood domain and friendship domain, Kui children no longer use Kui language. Their
switch to Alor Malay. If the family domain as the basis of language maintenance "has been
leaked," it means the base language maintenance is faltering. Leaking language maintenance
in the domain of the most basic is followed in the neighborhood domain.

Language shift is also evident in the use of language in the religion domain. Some activities
such as religious ceremony during Friday prayers at the mosque and completing the Qur'aan
10  

 
are all using the Indonesian language. Invitations and announcements for a given religious
activities in the Indonesian language.

The use of language in the life cycle of the ceremony seemed to reinforce the Kui language
shift. Marriage ceremonies and funeral ceremonies use Indonesian language. In the marriage
ceremony, especially intermarrying, all activities using the Indonesian language. Meanwhile,
the marriage ceremony involving both families of Kui ethnic group, only the handover
ceremony alone Kui language. After that, all the conversations made using Alor Malay.

Meanwhile, all the activities at the funerals ceremony carried out by using the Indonesian
language. All announcements, greeting, and conversation at the funeral was conducted in the
Indonesian language.

The question is whether the lego-lego and other types of oral tradition has a function in Kui
language maintenance? Of course, the oral tradition of lego-lego support Kui language
maintenance in terms of the different functions of language. Analysis of language shift and
maintenance have only reviewed the use of everyday language or vernacular function,
namely language as a means of communication within a group of people (eg, ethnic groups).
In fact, there is another function of language, namely vehicular function, as a means of
communication in the areas of administrative, legal and / or political, or communication
between different language groups (eg, ethnic groups or between countries); cultural
referential function, as a reference to the culture of a community or ethnic group (eg, as the
language in social or ceremonial language); and mythic or religious function, as the language
used in the realm of religion or belief (eg in religious ceremonies, mythology, or
proselytizing) (cf. Gobard 1976).

Referential-cultural function and mythic function is never used as a benchmark in the

analysis of language shift and maintenance. In fact, the oral tradition in some communities
carry out both functions of language. Lego-lego of Kui people is a translation of the cultural-
referential function and mythic. In the lego-lego contained mythological origins and ancestors
of Kui people. In fact, the performers in practice of lego-lego depends on the particular clan.
It was a rule accepted and considered as ancestors heritage.

11  

 
Conclusion
My preliminary research of indicated that lego-lego is the medium of social structure guard of
Kui people. In the oral tradition, the Kui people has the collective memory of who they are as
people and who Kui people themselves as a clan. Material culture, especially the clothing,
helped to keep the Kui people's collective memory. Here there is a reciprocal relationship
between lego-lego as an oral tradition with the mythological origins and material culture.

This paper did not analysis of communicative vehicle used to express lego-lego as suggested
Bauman (1975: 15-24) and Foley (1995: 53), which is a special code, figurative language,
parallelism, features of para-linguistics, special formula, appeal to tradition and disclaimer of
performance. Analysis of communicative vehicle will be done if the transcription on
documenting lego-lego completed.

References
Bauman, Richard. 1975. “Verbal Art as Performance,” in American Anthropologist, 77:
290—311.

Bauman, Richard. 1978. “Verbal Art as Performance.” Series in Sociolinguistics. Shuy, R.W.
(ed.). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Ben-Amos, Dan. 1997. “Performance.” In A. Green, Thomas (ed.). Foklore: An

Encyclopedia of Beiefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. California: ABC-Clio.

Bouman, M.A. 1943. “De Aloreesche Dansplaat,” in Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en
Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, Deel 102,3de/4de Afl. Page 481—500.

Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Finnegan, Ruth. 1997. Oral Traditions and The Verbal Arts: A Guide to Research Practices.
London: Routledge.

Foley, John Miles. 1981. “The Oral Theory in Context,” in Foley, John Miles (ed.). Oral
Traditional Literature: A Festschrift for Albert Bates Lord. Ohio: Slavica Publishers.

Foley, John Miles. 1995. The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press.

Katubi (ed.). 2011. Etnografi Kebahasaan dan Kebudayaan Orang Kui di Alor, Nusa
Tenggara Timur. Jakarta: LIPI Press.

Katubi (ed.). 2012. Pemertahanan Bahasa Kui di Alor, Nusa Tenggara Timur: Kajian
Vitalitas Etnolinguistik dan Agen Pemertahanan Bahasa. Jakarta: LIPI Press.
12  

 
Mhando, Jacob. 2008. Safeguarding Endangered Oral Traditions in East Africa. Nairobi:
UNESCO.

Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London:
Routledge.

Robins, R.H. 1980. General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. Third Edition. London:
Longman.

Rodemeier, Susanne. 1993. Lego-lego Platzt und Naga-Darstellung. Universitat Munchen,

Jerman.

UNESCO. 2003. “Promoting the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage.”

13