 Yeah, we'll go ahead and begin, I'll just give some introduction, assuming that my collaborators are still here. My name is Joey LaStrand, I'm a British Academy postdoctoral fellow in linguistics at SOAS, University of London. It's my first year there, and I think so far these series of webinars have been the highlight of the year. It's been great to see so many people interested in tuning in on various topics in linguistics. Our guest this time, I'm particularly excited to welcome, in part because I spent some time in Indonesia in the last few years, and Yanthi was somebody who welcomed me and hosted me in her venue at University of Magyar in Jakarta at least four or five times, at some point I lost count of how many times I went to events, so she and her team and her research unit pick every day are organizing there, so it's great to be able to switch roles and get to be hosts for Yanthi this time. I met Asako when they presented this work that's in progress at a conference in Jakarta back in February, so it's great to get a sneak peek at what they're working on then. I'm glad to, the more people have a chance to see what their ongoing work is all about. They are looking at variation in Indonesian, and when I first started getting a little bit interested in learning about Indonesian, very, we run into this question right away of are you going to learn formal Indonesian or the colloquial street Indonesian, presented as sort of a basic, di-classic division between these two kinds of language, but as you get a bit more into the country and culture, you realize that there's much more than just two ways to speak Indonesian, all kinds of regional variation, and there's a lot of anecdotes about variation, and there's been some studies of certain regions like Papua and Malay or other types of Indonesian, but there's very little out there in terms of data that actually compares the way people speak Indonesian across the country, and so Yanthi and Asako's work really is perhaps one of the first of its kind to provide a somewhat comprehensive look at comparable data that goes beyond anecdotes or just lists of words and looks at really what is the variation, how people actually use the language when they speak, how they're changing, what they're influencing that, and so it's an interesting work both for their methodology, but also for their results, and looking forward to hearing their reflections on some of the implications of their work as well as how it relates to people's different regional identities and how they view themselves and why they speak the way they do. So I'll try to unmute our speakers, before I give them the floor, let me just say that Yanthi and Asako will speak for 30 or 40 minutes, and then whatever is remaining of our time in that hour will open it up to questions, because we're a fairly large group of probably just two questions in writing, so if you have a question at any time, you can just type that question into the chat, and then at the end of the time I'll go through and try to ask as many of your questions as possible to Yanthi and Asako. So Terima kasih, thank you very much, Yanthi and Asako, looking forward to your presentation. Okay, sama sama, so hand for everyone, depending on where you are, good morning, good afternoon, or even good evening to you all. First of all, Asako and I would like to thank SOAS University of London, and especially to Joy Lobstern, for inviting us to share our ongoing work at this webinar series. Today we are going to present about regional variation in Indonesian, as already mentioned by Joy. So maybe I should start sharing my file, let me just turn off the video, so that it's quite clear, wait, no, is it clear? Can you see the slides already? Okay, good, yes. According to etnolog, there are about 710 living languages in Indonesia. This is about 10% of the world languages, and makes Indonesia the second most linguistically diverse country after Papua New Guinea. And these languages fall into two language families, about 65% of them are Austronesian, whereas the 26% belong to the non-Austronesian group, or they usually refer it to as Papuan languages. The linguistic diversity is more obvious in the eastern part of Indonesia, especially in the provinces of Papua, West Papua, Maluku, and East Nusa Penggara. This is a map of Indonesia, the country is located in Southeast Asia, and the area ranges from here to here, and the linguistic diversity is observed mostly here around this area in Nusa Penggara, Maluku, Papua Barat, and Papua, Papua Barat always Papua. In 1945, when the country declared its independence, Bahasa Indonesia, or the Indonesian language was promoted as the national language. Actually almost two decades before, in 1928, the name Bahasa Indonesia was first used when it was declared as the language of national unity by the nationalists. Bahasa Indonesia is Mele, or a variety of Mele, although at that time, there were only about 5% of the population understood the language. And the linguistic area of Mele covers Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, and South Thailand. Returning to its role as the national language, Indonesian is used as the main medium of instruction at schools, the official language in the government offices, and mass media. Because of this role, more and more younger people learn Indonesian as their first language. Studies have shown that there is a weakening of local languages, however, the Indonesian language has been in contact with indigenous languages, regional lingua franca and foreign languages. While there is a decline of indigenous languages, the language contact has triggered the emergence of new varieties, especially in larger cities. These varieties inherit the features of indigenous languages. And in this talk, we will show the social linguistic situation in Indonesia with a special focus on regional varieties of Indonesian Mele. We specifically focus on describing the linguistic features observed in the urban varieties we mentioned earlier and discuss how people's identities are reflected in the use of these varieties. What we are presenting today is based on the data in a semi-parallel corpus we have been building using a picture task. We will also discuss this briefly later. Let me now provide a picture of the classification of Mele based on Adelaar 2018. According to him, Mele varieties can be categorized into three types, standard varieties, vernacular varieties and regional lingua franca varieties. The standard varieties include the official Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia. The vernacular varieties are spoken in traditional Mele regions such as Pontianak Mele or Brunei Mele, which are spoken in the island of Borneo. Regional lingua franca varieties are spoken mainly in and around urban areas, originally the speakers who speak different, used by people who have different mother tongue. In our recent work, we claim that actually the regional lingua franca varieties like based on the present states, we can categorize the regional lingua franca into two more groups and they are established varieties and emerging varieties. In this slide we will show the social linguistic hierarchy of Mele Indonesia. The standard Indonesian is more prestigious as it is used as the standard language, the Bahasa Baku. As the standard variety has spread through education and mass media, most people are now bilingual or more than two varieties. And then the vernacular varieties and regional lingua franca are considered less prestigious. They are often referred to as Bahasa Sahari Hari, the language of daily life. So that's an overview of the social linguistic situation of Indonesia. Now let me continue by talking about the method and data of our work. We have been building a semi-paracorpus of Mele Indonesian varieties. The corpus consists of narratives elicited using the Jekyll and Crow picture test as a stimulus. We follow Carol et al. 2011 work. The picture test consists of nine pictures depicting scenes from the story of Jekyll and Crow. Using non-linguistic stimulus for eliciting data has been adopted in many recent studies. The use of such stimulus helps elicit utterances under specific conditions to clarify specific linguistic aspects, which is rather difficult to clarify either through the non-controlled utterance or other elicitation methods such as translation to a medium language or asking for grammatical judgments. The pair story project and the frog story project are examples of other studies using non-linguistic stimulus. These are the nine pictures of Jekyll and Crow tasks. The first picture shows the crow, like a crow takes a fish from a basket, then a Jekyll comes and sees the crow fly to a tree. The Jekyll imagine how delicious the fish is and salivates. Then the Jekyll tells the crow to sing. Then the crow starts singing and drops the fish. The Jekyll eats the fish. He is satisfied and licks the lips. And then the crow looks really sad for losing his fish. So that's the pictures that we use. Now how did we collect the data? So basically we asked the participants to tell a story based on the cards. For each participant we follow the following procedures. First we gave them the cards one at a time. Then we asked them to tell a story by looking at the picture one by one. After that we asked them to tell a story without looking at the pictures. So we already have two types of stories there. And in some sessions we also asked the participants to tell the story from the few points of one of the characters, either the Jekyll or the crow. Okay now let me try to briefly talk about the nature of the data we have. The task is predominantly designed to collect narratives. So the features observable in interactions of course rarely appear in the data. Thus the data may miss some distinctive regional features that would be observable in conversations. The nature of the task also has a disadvantage in that it induces speakers to choose a more formal or standard variety which is easily associated with recounting narratives. Especially in locations such as in Jakarta and Makassar where the regional varieties are considered colloquial or informal versions of standard Indonesian. Despite its limitation this corpus has allowed us to make direct lexical and structural comparison among the varieties and to see distinct regional features in some cases. The clearest structural differences are observed in transitive clauses. We will focus on the points in the following. Before that let me show you the locations where we have collected our data. There are 14 locations in Malaysia and Indonesia. The data were collected collaboratively by some researchers who were involved in the ILCAA, the Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies at Asakos Institution. So it's joint research with the project titled Research on Malay varieties. We really thank our collaborators and all language consultants for their contributions. Okay now let me move to the next slide to show some samples from our data. We will use the data we collected in Jakarta as a representative of standard Indonesian and we will as for the vernacular Malay we will show the data from Brunei Malay and the Kupang Malay is shown to represent the established regional lingua franca variety and then after that Asako will focus on talking about emerging variety in a second half of this presentation. We have observed various kinds of distinctions among these varieties in phenology morphology and lexicon and in this presentation we will only focus on morphosyntactic distinctions that are observed in predicates with verbs. Let us introduce one very basic point about verbal morphology in standard Indonesian. Maybe many of the audience already are familiar with this but just to make sure that people have the same idea standard Malay is characterized by the nasal prefix meng to mark the active voice. As we can see in example one the mem prefix mark the active voice and the d prefix is used to mark the passive voice as shown in example number two that prefix by D. Now what about the data we have in our corpus? I will start with Jakarta Indonesian as I mentioned earlier so let me show you okay let's listen to the recording. Okay as we can hear in the recording and also in the text we present in this slide there are four transitive verbs used by this speaker in this excerpt mengambil ambil with the mem prefix and then menik mati with the mem prefix also and then mem perhatikan also with the mem prefix and melihat with the mem prefix. So they all occur in mem prefix verbs and almost all the speakers of standard Indonesian take similar strategy so we can see that meng active verbs are the unmarked transitive construction in narratives in standard Indonesian. Now what about in Malay, Brunei Malay which is a representative of vernacular Malay. Let's listen to this first. Okay as we can see here the speaker uses three passive verbs in his story so in this particular variety it seems like the D passive verbs are the default in the narratives. Next we will see the regional lingua franca variety. I mentioned earlier that this is a representative of the established lingua franca that is kupang malay. Let's listen to this. So as you can see also in the text here the word churi to steel and churi also total they are all in bare forms but they are preceded by the word pi which is a truncated form of pergi or pegi to go. Well so we have seen interesting differences of marking verbs in narratives in these three different varieties of Malay Indonesian that's in standard Indonesian vernacular varieties and the established regional lingua franca. How do the data from emerging varieties look like? Now Asako will continue the presentation. Please Asako. Yep thank you. I will continue. Oh now we will talk about emerging urban varieties. Next new urban varieties have been emerging after the spread of Indonesian as a national language. The status of the varieties sometimes may not be sufficiently established as an independent one and reflecting the status its speakers often recognize it as a colloquial or informal version of standard Indonesian rather than a dialect. Only a little research has been done to investigate the linguistic features of these varieties except Jakarta colloquial Indonesian spoken in the capital city of Indonesia. Jakarta colloquial Indonesian is a variety emerged after Indonesian independence. Colloquial Jakarta Indonesian is not the same as although has been influenced by Jakarta or Putawimale which was traditionally used in this area. Outsiders call it Bahasa Jakarta but the speakers themselves just call it Bahasa Suharihari lady language considering it as one of the registers of Indonesian they use. For outsiders though it is a prestigious dialect and often serves as an informal counterpart of the formal variety and thus has been influential to other regional varieties. So let's listen to an example from our corpus. So on one day there was a corpus that was looking for food. When he was looking for food, he found a large place like Tongbe, where the fish was inside. The corpus chose to take one fish. Yeah, here the speaker uses five transitive verbs chari, nyari, numu, mili, ngambil. Four of them occur with nasalization of the stem initial sound that is nyari, numu, mili, ngambil. The nasalization is considered to be a reduced form of the active voice prefix moon in standard Indonesian. So we could say that this variety Jakarta colloquial Indonesian it's similar to standard Indonesian in that the active voice form is an unmarked choice in narrative though the morphology is a bit simplified. Next let's move to Makassar. We will see the variety relatively recently emerged in Makassar in Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia. Makassar is located in the eastern part of Indonesia far from Jakarta and considered to be in Felifero region rather Felifero region in Indonesia. Makassar is the capital of the south Sulawesi province. It is a large city with approximately 1.77 million of inhabitants in 2017. It is a multi-ethnic city. Makassar is the most dominant ethnic group and other major ethnic groups of south Sulawesi such as Bugini, Toraja, Mandar form the majority group. People from other ethnic groups such as Japanese are increasing recently though. Gil and Jukes deal with Makassar Indonesian or South Sulawesi Indonesian as regional variety of Indonesian. According to Gil, Makassar Indonesian functions as a link of rank for communication between speakers of different ethnic groups mostly Makassar and Bugis. Jukes shows some grammatical features of the variety from his observation. However, detailed linguistic features based on corpus have not been examined yet. From our corpus, we could see about Makassar Indonesian these points. First, Makassar Indonesian shows features shared with link of rank variety as a link of rank variety for example frequent use of p that is a reduced form of go in predicates. And second, it also shows heavy influence of Makassarese, a predominant indigenous language in the region. The most striking influence is the borrowing of pronominal critics from Makassarese. We will show a brief outline of Makassarese predicate structure. Based on Jukes 2013, the Makassarese predicate has a structure like this. Before stem aspect or modal pro-critic and or negative critic pronoun occurs in this order. And after the stem aspect or modal and critic and or absolute critic pronoun occurs in this order. This table shows the critic pronouns and TAM critics in Makassarese. Critic pronouns are marked with orange and Makassar Indonesian borrows the critic pronouns with some adjustments the details of which we will not discuss any further in this presentation. And as for TAM critics that is marked with green among them, the three critics that is Mo and Peh and Ja form combinations with and critic-argative pronouns. Next, this table shows the combinatoriforms. Among the 20 combinatoriforms Makassar Indonesian only borrows the third person TAM critics which is marked with yellow that is Me, Perfective, Peh Imperfective and Ge-Limitative. And Makassar Indonesian uses them for all the persons. So now let's listen to the example from the corpus. This text is provided by a speaker. Food's first language is Makassarese. This in this short excerpt we have five transitive words. And four of them have pro-critic pronouns marked with green. And three of them have acritic pronouns marked with blue. And the TAM marker marked with orange, Me, occurs once in the verb phrase Ambilmi. Next. So we can say the predicates in the excerpt in the previous slide take the a marked Makassarese transitive clause structure with some adjustment. Pro-critic and bare stem and acritic. Nama Kanki means he ate it. Let's see another example of Makassar Indonesian. The speaker of this text is a native speaker of Bugini. It's this time. Here, the speaker uses TAM markers, Me, which is marked with orange more frequently than the previous speaker. Although she also uses acritic pronouns marked with blue twice, Thea, Thea, Ki, Munya, Niko. So next slide please. Yeah. Now let's have some discussion on Makassar Indonesian. If we see the situation of Makassar Indonesian from a view of linguistic or grammatical borrowings in general, bound morphology is highly resident to borrowing according to Prince 1988, among others, among others. Borrowing of pronominal critics observed in Makassar Indonesian eats, therefore cross linguistically an uncommon case. Most speakers of Makassar Indonesian all fluently speak standard Indonesian too. Standard Indonesian has its own device for personal marking. The personal marking with Makassarese set of pronominal critics in Makassar Indonesian is redundant from the point of view of expressing propositional meanings. So how a question arises, how should we explain the use of pronominal critics or Makassarese origin in Makassar Indonesian? One hypothesis may be that the speaker use the pronominal critics to demonstrate their identity. The speaker's comments will support the hypothesis. This is a comment from a Makassarian guy. He is a speaker of the first example of Makassar Indonesian. When we requested him to tell a story in Makassar Indonesian, he asked us like this, which level do you want? According to him, there are two levels of Makassar Indonesian. Level one is the lighter level. It only employs the TM critics such as me, B and G. And level two is the heavier level. It employs pronominal critics. He added, outsiders use only level one. Level two is only used among the indigenous people of South Sulawesi. Let us introduce a comment from another consultant who is a Burkini graduate student studying in a Japanese university. He said, most of the people of South Sulawesi origin understand Makassar Indonesian of level two. That is the heavier level. But no Makassarese, for example Burkini, only use the level one. That is the lighter level among them. They use the level two only when they speak with Makassarese people. He also said, when I communicate with other Indonesian friends from Jakarta or other areas of Java in Japan, I use colloquial Indonesian like Jakarta Indonesian. But I will never do that. Never speak Jakarta Indonesian in Makassar. If I do that, friends of mine there will complain by asking me, like, who are you? Where are you from? Their comment supports the hypothesis that the speakers of Makassar Indonesian use the pronominal critics of Makassarese origin to demonstrate their identity. Makassarese use the pronominal critics heavily to demonstrate their identity as Makassarese. That leads to the most dominant ethnic group of the region. Burkini's people, another ethnic group of the region, use the pronominal critics to demonstrate that they are insiders of the South Sulawesi society. Based on their comments, we could say that the people in Makassar intentionally choose how heavily they use Makassar features in their utterance based on the status or language background of the addressing. Similar observations are reported about other non-standard varieties in Indonesia, such as Cooper Malay, as discussed in Erington 2013. So let me conclude this presentation. In this presentation, we have shown social linguistic situation in Indonesia with a special focus on regional varieties of Indonesian and Malay. Samples of each variety form a semi-parallel corpus show the grammatical differences among them explicitly. In addition to established varieties, new urban varieties are emerging recently. One such case is Makassar Indonesian. The observation of Makassar Indonesian shows that the speakers use the regional variety to demonstrate their local identity. In the introductory part of the presentation, we have shown the social linguistic hierarchies formed by standard Indonesian and regional varieties. After we have seen the function of Makassar Indonesian, we could see the situation is not as simple as shown there. So it's true that standard Indonesian is a prestige variety and regional varieties in general are considered to be less prestigious varieties, but the situation is not a simple binary opposition like that. As we have seen, regional lingaflaka varieties have a function to demonstrate their local identity and show their authority among the indigenous ethnic groups. In the recent social change in which the indigenous languages are declining, the regional lingaflaka malay varieties may compensate the function of the indigenous language once played. That's it for the presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Yanti and Nasa Ko. Yeah, great to see again, especially that Makassar data. It's very interesting to see what they're doing and also their own reflections on why they're doing what they're doing. So if anyone has questions, you want to use the last 15 minutes or so to discuss, please do write those into the chat. There's a couple of questions that already come in and these are really about the scope of your study and perspective on how other sometimes called malay creals fit into your picture of malay varieties. So the first question is where do varieties like Papua Malay or Manada Malay fit in given that they are not mutually intelligible with other varieties? Are these varieties of one language? So how do Papua Malay and Manada Malay fit into your view of variation in malay Indonesian? Okay, where do you answer? How do you answer, Yanti? Those are tough questions. We haven't really seen data from Papua Malay, but I guess it's more into the, what's that, the vernacular, let me check this again. I think they are still considered as, they are also the regional lingua franca, in a sense that they are used by people from different backgrounds in the area. That's what I think. So functionally, they still have that same regional function that you're looking at. You're not necessarily looking at how closely genetically related these varieties are or if they're all necessary mutually intelligible, more of their social function. So, Peter, do you mean, do you mean a speaker of Papua Malay cannot communicate with the speaker of Manada Malay? And is it still lingua franca? Is that your question? I can try to unmute Peter if you want to say anything. Okay, thank you. Well, firstly, thank you both very much for the presentation. I found it really interesting and it was nice to learn about the ongoing research. My question is more a deeper philosophical one, which is, you seem to be treating all of this as Malay and then saying, well, we can sub-categorize that into different types of Malay. But the issue to me is, well, where do you draw the line? And how do you know that something is Malay and something is not Malay? So if we said, you know, somebody who only spoke Indonesian Malay and was confronted with Javanese would probably not understand it, therefore, their separate languages. But from what my understanding is that if you have someone who speaks Papuan Malay and they speak their variety, then someone else from Kupang or from Manado or Jakarta would have a really hard time understanding, possibly even to the extent of not, you know, being as different as Javanese. So my question is really, how do you draw this distinction between language and dialect or variety? It's a very old question and it's one, you know, that many people struggle with. Yeah, frankly speaking, I haven't thought about these philosophical questions deeper. The classification we made here is basically a historical one. So yeah, I like to think about that issue later. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Peter. So the next question there was a similar one asking also about where Betawi Malay fits this picture as well. So I suppose your answer would be similar, that you haven't thought too much about distinguishing between Betawi Malay and others. And I know there's debates about what is a creole and what is a dialect or an emerging variety and all these questions as well. There's a question on another topic on the use of this particle P, the one derived from Pergy in Kupang Malay and other varieties. The question is, did this grammaticalization evolve separately or is there a common origin and perhaps some context, shared context? So specifically you showed the P in Kupang Malay, I think, and also in Makassar Indonesia. Yeah, I will answer to the question. Yeah, I don't have any evidence about that, but we can guess that P used in Makassar Indonesia has the same origin of the eastern, traditional eastern lingua franca malay, like Kupang Malay. And because Makassar is located in the eastern part of Indonesia and it is reasonable to consider it as the influence of the lingua franca varieties. Okay, there may be some influence there. I had a question about the semantics of that, if I can interject my own question. You normally translated that as some kind of concurrent motion, so they went doing something, so the action of moving was happening at the same time as the action or the activity of the verb. I wonder if that, if there's not also context where you might translate that as a prior motion, so they went and did something or they went before doing something or went in order to do something even. Have you looked specifically at the semantics of this and how it functions in discourse and its use or is that not something you put that yet? We haven't looked into that very much. So another question about the the source of change in these emerging varieties. Let's try to read this question. We have seen that there are new emerging varieties from Makassar or it's influenced by a relatively distinct regional language, but certainly some Malay vernacular varieties and established regional lingua franca are undergoing changes with influence from both standard Indonesian and Jakarta colloquial Indonesian. Are there new varieties emerging from these changes too? So not just influence from the substrate from the local language, but influence from the standard or the colloquial Jakarta Indonesian. Are you seeing that influence in emerging varieties also? Yes, the similar changes are ongoing in several large cities in Indonesia. For example, Michael Ewing is dealing with a new emerging variety spoken in in Sunda area in Bandung. Yeah, so there are some emerging varieties reported, but not to a greater extent as we have we can see in Makassar. So in for example in Bandung, Indonesia, only discourse markets of Sundanese origin are used in the variety. So maybe Makassar Indonesian behaves, exhibits exceptional behavior in that it incorporates the pronominal critics in their grammars. Thank you. Do you also see these regional varieties adopting features from colloquial Jakarta Indonesian into the way they're speaking now that that kind of influence also happening? Oh, yeah. How do you think, Yanthi? Well, as far as I can recall from the data we recorded and looked at, I did not yet notice like a strong influence from the more like prestigious colloquial variety like Jakarta Indonesian. There's a much more local influence on the emerging variety versus shifting towards a more standard. But this is a good point. We'll try to take a closer look and make, you know, and then see if that is really the case. Okay, there's another question from Peter, a long one. Peter, can I maybe unmute you again and let you ask your question? Okay. Do you want me to ask the question rather than you read it out? Yeah, go ahead. You don't mind. I guess my question was most sociolinguistic studies where people have looked particularly looking at urban variation. It's a matter of frequency. The use of particular features, linguistic features and so on, they vary according to a frequency pattern. So you have pointed out, for example, you have the Mun Transitive Active Marker and you showed us there are varieties that have it. There are some that do not have it. But if we look at from the perspective of sociolinguistics, what we might expect is frequencies rather than presence or absence. So, you know, there might be situations in which people use Mun 60% of the time or 70% of the time. And so the two kind of cross-cutting dimensions that sociolinguists have typically found, you know, going back to Le Bois 50 years ago, is social factors. For example, what you identified as in-group communication, you know, people expressing their identity belonging to a particular group. So that's the social dimension. And there's also the stylistic dimension. So typically when we pay more attention to our language, we use more prestigious, more standard, more, you know, upper on a percentage basis, not absolute. So I was just interested to ask if you were thinking about looking at it from a proportions or percentage factor and whether you had compared across styles. So conversational style versus telling a picture story style versus elicitation style versus, you know, checking people. How do you pronounce exactly this word? So the two cross-cutting dimensions of social dimension and stylistic dimension looked at from a proportional point of view, not a plus or minus way that you seem to be presenting it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Peter. So, yeah, we, until this moment, our corpus only contains the data from the picture set. We haven't had a chance. We haven't really collected other types of data, but we agree that, you know, social context seem to influence the types of speech or style that they provide. Maybe I should share a little bit of our data in Makassar. We actually also, so we collected data from like this setting of data collection when we collected our data in Makassar were kind of different. We have two different settings. One is at the university setting and the other one is outside the university. Seems like our speakers who are, so of course, where their social status, they are lecturers, they tend to use more of this standardized language or variety when they were told to tell the stories. The respondents who are, who we recorded outside the university, they were more aware, it's not more aware, but they, maybe because of the context, they actually use like the variety which we think that that's the, not like sort of like real the day-to-day or bahasa-sahari-hari that they use in Makassar. But that's, yeah, I think it's a good point to see like the occurrence, not just the presence or absence, but also to see how much and there are different factors that affect, you know, how one speaker choose which variety they use in their speech. I don't know, maybe Asako want to add. No. How many seem to add? Thank you. Our last question then is along the same line. And so while Peter was pointing out the social context and you've taken that into account, also some questions about how the more individual socioeconomic variables might influence how a person speaks. So one question, just pointing out that some of your respondents have several different varieties in their repertoire. So I think as we expect probably all of them do. I wonder how common this is and is there a relationship with the level of education? So did you look at educational backgrounds of your respondents? Then there was another question on Facebook asking whether you looked at the correlation with gender. So are you tracking these specific sort of individual socioeconomic characteristics? And will you look at how these things affect how likely a person is to use certain emerging features in their speech? Because of the nature of the task, it requires some some kind of higher education level. So it is not very easy for everyone to see the picture and to know it in standard Indonesian and colloquial Indonesian. So we have to admit that our data in Makassar Indonesia and other varieties, other limited varieties also the consultants are relatively of high educational level. But yeah, we have to see as a more utterances in casual conversation of ordinary peoples. I'd like to do that in the further study. That's great. You want to add anything, Yanti? Oh, I think, yeah, that's great. Well, we reached the end of our hour. We don't have any questions waiting. So maybe we'll just end there. Say thank you again to Yanti and Asako for your time, participation and sharing your ongoing research. Yeah, exciting to see what you're doing. And we look forward to your whatever comes of this research, the many publications that I'm sure will come from your ongoing research. So thank you for sharing with us today. You're welcome.