LOCAL LANGUAGES IN INDONESIA: LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE OR LANGUAGE SHIFT? Review

Title : LOCAL LANGUAGES IN INDONESIA: LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE OR LANGUAGE SHIFT?
 Author :  Maya Ravindranath
Journal : Linguistik Indonesia Agustus 2014, 131-148
 Publication : August 2014
Abstract : The choice and subsequent development of Bahasa Indonesia as the national language following the founding of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 is widely cited as a great success story in language planning. With the increased use of Indonesian—both formal (bahasa resmi) and informal (bahasa sehari-hari)—in all facets of daily life, the question arises as to whether Indonesia will continue as a highly multilingual society or move toward monolingualism. We consider this issue from the perspectives of research on language policy, language endangerment, and language ideologies. As a case study, we consider current trends and shifts in the use of Javanese by younger speakers as influenced by the increased use of Indonesian. As Indonesian takes over in more and more domains of communication and intergenerational transmission of Javanese breaks down, we are led to conclude that even a language with over 80 million speakers can be at risk, a trend that has serious implications for all of the local languages of Indonesia.
Goals : to consider current trends and shifts in the use of Javanese by younger speakers as influenced by the increased use of Indonesian. As Indonesian takes over in more and more domains of communication and intergenerational transmission of Javanese breaks down, we are led to conclude that even a language with over 80 million speakers can be at risk, a trend that has serious implications for all of the local languages
Problems : current trends and shifts in the use of Javanese by younger speakers as influenced by the increased use of Indonesian
Theories : Language shift, Indonesian, language policy
Method : research
Findings & Conclusion :

It is generally agreed that Indonesian as a national language is a successful example of language planning and language standardization in the interest of nation building. Grimes (1996:724) asks: “Should Indonesian be a force for unity at the expense of the diversity of existing languages and cultures, or should national unity be built on a foundation that accommodates and appreciates ethnolinguistic diversity?” The evidence from Javanese underscores his implication that there is a trade off between the success of a national language and vitality of local vernaculars. Anderbeck (2012), in discussing Gorontalo, a language with one million speakers, asks the question of whether languages with large speaker populations can be “too big to fail”.
The evidence from Javanese suggests that size alone will not lead to language maintenance. Languages with large speaker populations have the advantage of a more heterogenous speaker population, and the likelihood that shifts in language dynamics will not lead as quickly to an irreversible outcome. In addition, languages with large speaker populations aremore likely to be written, and already  have historical records and documentation. Nevertheless, rapid language shift of the type that we discuss above will have a profound impact. Large languages, even one such as Javanese with 84 million speakers, are at risk of greatly reduced numbers of fluent speakers and loss of the full richness of linguistic knowledge and tradition, although there may be many ways in which Javanese continues to be vital and integral to the linguistic ecology (as highlighted by Musgrave n.d., Goebel 2005, Zentz 2012, and others).
Language is not a monolithic entity; rather it resides in a system of linguistic and social ecology (in the sense discussed by Mufwene 2012). The impact of shifts in patterns of use may be non-uniform across facets of the language, as in the case of Krama vs. Ngoko, or might disproportionately affect certain segments of the population, such as the more rapid patterns of shift seen in middle class women. At the same time, different languages already serve distinct social and cultural functions.
As pointed out by Zentz (2012), local, national, and global languages offer different opportunities linguistically and socially. The situation of language endangerment worldwide has demonstrated the critical importance of language documentation. What the complexity of the Javanese situation highlights is the need not only for documentation, but also for studies that address language use and language attitudes. Fuller study of local patterns of language use will help us to understand the complex factors that contribute to language vitality. Ideally such studies will be able to both document the rate of change by looking at generational differences in language use patterns, as well as examine the factors that contribute to change.
We are undertaking two projects to contribute to these goals. In the first, Bahasa Kita, we have developed a language use questionnaire for use throughout Indonesia. This questionnaire (Cohn et al. 2013,Kuesioner Penggunaan Bahasa Sehari-hari)buildson previous questionnaires that have been developed for use in Indonesia and elsewhere (most notably the Middle Indonesia Project conducted by Errington and colleagueswith a questionnaire developed byTadmor.)5 It includes questions about personal background, including the geographic, ethnic, religious, educational and linguistic background of the respondent, their parents, their grandparents, and their spouse and children.
It also asks about their level of mastery of different languages, their use of technology, and their language use in 34 different domains. Finally, we include 14 attitude questions with a 5-point response scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The questionnaire offers a way to gain a broad overview and look at conditioning factors, providing connections between individual choices and community level decisions. The questionnaire can be completed online or in hard copy and is available at http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/jakarta/kuesioner.php. An English version of the questionnaire is also available if scholars would like to use it in other linguistic settings. In our current project, we are using the questionnaire to compare patterns of language use in several local languages of Indonesia with speaking populations over a million people.
We are using preliminary results to address key questions about language shift scenarios (as reported in Cohn et al. 2014) and at the same time working to develop models of the multiple factorsthatcontribute to scenarios of language change. The second project, the Basa Urang Proyek, is a more in-depth case study of the use of Indonesian and Sundanese in West Java. Sundanese is the 3rd most widely spoken local language (after Javanese and local varieties of Malay if these are pooled together), with an estimated speaking population of 34 million speakers.
Like Javanese, Sundanese is a high prestige, written language spoken by a clearly defined ethnic group with a large speaker population. Sundanese has received comparatively less attention in the literature (although see Sobarna 2010 and Moriyama 2012 on increasing use of Indonesian at the expense of Sundanese in Bandung; and, Sobarna et al. 1997 and Djajasudarma 1994 on the use of colloquial Indonesian in Sundanese communities). In this project, we aim to consider the SundaneseIndonesian contact situation more closely, using questionnaires and interviews in West Javanese communities to examine the interplay of sociolinguistic background, language use and language attitudesin urban and rural Sundanese communities.We look forward to reporting on the results from these studies and welcome colleagues to join in using the methodologies, questionnaire, and interview materials for other case studies.

Fairclough’s Concepts of Language Policy and Language Planning: A Comparative Study between Malaysia and Cambodia review

Fairclough’s Concepts of Language Policy and Language Planning: A Comparative Study between Malaysia and Cambodia review

1.       Title                    : Fairclough’s Concepts of Language Policy and Language Planning: A

   Comparative Study between Malaysia and Cambodia

2.       Author                 :  Mohd Nazri Latiff Azmi*, Nurul Wahida Samsuddin, Mairas Abd Rahman

3.      Journal                 : American Journal of Educational Research, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 9, 375-379

4.       Publication          : 2013

5.      Abstract             : This paper is a comparative study of two important journals which reflect the challenges faced by two developing countries: Malaysia and Cambodia. The objectives of this study are to investigate the problems, planning and challenges faced by both countries and also to justify the language policy and planning of both countries using Fairclough’s concepts in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

6.      Goals                   : to reflect the challenges faced by two developing countries: Malaysia and Cambodia

7.      Problems           : challenges faced by two developing countries: Malaysia and Cambodia. The objectives of this study are to investigate the problems, planning and challenges faced by both countries and also to justify the language policy and planning of both countries using Fairclough’s concepts in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

8.      Theories          : Critical Discourse Analysis, Language Policy, language planning, Fairclough.

9.      Method            : research

10.  Findings & Conclusion :

This paper is a comparative study of two important journals which reflect the challenges faced by two developing countries: Malaysia and Cambodia. The objectives of this study are to investigate the problems, planning and challenges faced by both countries and also to justify the language policy and planning of both countries using Fairclough’s concepts in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

The findings show that language policy and language planning in Malaysia and Cambodia are majorly influenced by the political development at both of the countries themselves. Obviously, the national language of Bahasa Malaysia and Khmer has experienced development and standardization surrounded with the influence of second language, that is English.

Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, Language Policy, language planning, Fairclough.

As for the conclusion, language policy and language planning in Malaysia and Cambodia was majorly influenced by the political development at both of the countries themselves. Foreign occupation and many other drastic changes in the government had severely affected language planning and language policy.

Quoting from Thong (n.d.), “national institutions, committees, commissions, and private organisations have in the course of the time shifted or re-moulded their emphasis from one function to another”. These agencies or bodies had adapted functions or adopted new functions to meet the needs or new policies based on the ruling power.

Throughout this process, the national language of Bahasa Malaysia and Khmer had experienced development and standardization. All in all, the findings from this comparative study prove that both Asian countries experience a unique process of setting up their language policy and planning which is in line with Fairclough’s concepts of power and hegemony in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA (Capdevila, 2011).

Literature Review of Language Planning and Language Policy since 21st Century review

Literature Review of Language Planning and Language Policy since 21st Century review

1.      Title                 : Literature Review of Language Planning and Language Policy since 21st Century

2.      Author             : Ningning Hao

3.      Journal              : Vol. 8, No. 7, pp. 888-892

4.      Publication      : July 2018

     5.      Abstract          : As a major part of sociolinguistics, language planning has become a major research topic for many scholars. As a branch of Applied Linguistics, language planning is not a theoretical field of academic research, but mainly based on solving language problems in society. In the past 50 years, language planning research has been deepened and the coverage has gradually expanded. Especially, since 1990s, language planning has become a subject of rejuvenation, which has increasingly highlighted its importance and research prospects. This paper will review and analyze the general situation of language planning research in the past 20 years at home and abroad, and look forward to the future trend of language planning research.

6.      Goals                : to review and analyze the general situation of language planning research in the past 20 years at home and abroad, and look forward to the future trend of language planning research.

7.      Problems          : the general situation of language planning research in the past 20 years at home and abroad, and look forward to the future trend of language planning research. 

      8.      Theories           : language planning, language policy, linguistics

9.      Methods           : research

10.  Findings  & Conclusion :

As a major part of sociolinguistics, language planning has become a major research topic for many scholars. As a branch of Applied Linguistics, language planning is not a theoretical field of academic research, but mainly based on solving language problems in society. In the past 50 years, language planning research has been deepened and the coverage has gradually expanded. Especially, since 1990s, language planning has become a subject of rejuvenation, which has increasingly highlighted its importance and research prospects. This paper will review and analyze the general situation of language planning research in the past 20 years at home and abroad, and look forward to the future trend of language planning research.

Language policy and planning research is an evolving discipline. Like all areas of dynamic change systems, it must adapt to change, not only to discover new phenomena and new problems, but to reassess past practices and existing theories based on new knowledge. Language policy theorists and practitioners not only need to explain the current observed facts, but also provide necessary guidance for those who want to resolve conflicts, improve communication efficiency, and respect language variants. Because of this, they often need to avoid too simple models and solutions.

Scholars generally do not directly put forward clear recommendations, but rather reveal the complexities of understanding the challenges of understanding language policies, describing socio-linguistic ecology, recognizing many opposing views, and proposing language planning and management methods (Spolsky, 2012, p 15).  The social process has three major characteristics: globalization, migration, and regional management. The theoretical model of language policy and planning undoubtedly must comply with the needs of the times.

Although new research issues are constantly emerging, the old issues will still be noticed. These are the essential features of language policy and planning disciplines. Of course, there are still some problems in the domestic language planning research, and It seems that there still exists a long way for Chinese LPLP research to go to link up with the international standards. Zhao Ronghui pointed out that three aspects of the book, such as the lack of interdisciplinary perspectives, the lack of theoretical construction, and the inadequate research methods, are the areas in which the book is in short supply."

And in fact, this is also some serious problems of language planning that the domestic researchers are facing. Chen Zhangtai considers that:"...... The scientific research is not adequate and strong enough, and the language planning theory is relatively weak, and some language planning activities and practices are not scientific enough." In recent years, the study of language planning focuses on practical research. Many scholars use the theory of language planning to analyze language planning and language policies of one or several countries or a political and economic union from an academic perspective.

Krzyanowski and Wodak (2011) discuss the relationship between politics and multilingual policy, deeply exploring EU multilingualism during Lisbon strategic period. They believe that the economic factors of language policy and multilingual policy mainly depend on the EU strategy deployment on the overall economic development. Georgiou (2011) discussed the standardization of geographical names in Cyprus. Nolan (2010) conducted a detailed study of the French language policy and multilingual status, and explored many language events from 1992 to 2004.

ARTICLE ABOUT NATIONAL LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE PLANNING

NATIONAL LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE PLANNING

"National language" and "official language" are best understood as two concepts or legal categories with ranges of meaning that may coincide, or may be intentionally separate. Stateless nations are not in the position to legislate an official language, but their languages may be sufficiently distinct and well-preserved to be national languages. Some languages may be recognized popularly as "national languages," while others may enjoy official recognition in use or promotion.

In many African countries, some or all indigenous African languages are officially used, promoted, or expressly allowed to be promoted (usually taught in schools and written in important publications) as semi-official languages whether by long-term legislation or short-term, case-by-case executive (government) measures. To be official, spoken and written languages may enjoy government or federalized use, major tax-funded promotion or at least full tolerance as to their teaching and employers' recognition in public education, standing on equal footing with the official language(s). Further, they may enjoy recognition as a language used in compulsory schooling and treasury money may be spent to teach or encourage adults in learning a language which is a minority language in a particular area to restore its understanding and spread its moral stories, rhymes, poems, phrases, songs, and other literary heritage which will promote social cohesion (where other languages remain) or will promote nationalist differentiation where another, non-indigenous language is deprecated.

Official status and minority languages 

Because of its colonial history, as well as its value as a world language and international lingua franca, English is an official language in many countries throughout the world, such as Pakistan, Fiji, Vanuatu, Jamaica and the Bahamas. Often it shares this official status with an indigenous language, such as Malay in Malaysia, Swahili in Tanzania and Gilbertese in Kiribati. But, interestingly, English is not legally an official language of England, the USA, or New Zealand. In these countries it has not been considered necessary to legislate that the language of the majority is an official language. In New Zealand, ironically, although English is  de facto  (in fact or actuality) the official language of government and education, Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are the two languages which have legal or  de jure  status as official languages.

Elsewhere there have been riots over language issues. Linguistic minorities in India have rioted when their demands have fallen on deaf ears. In Belgium, French and Flemish have had legal equality since 1963, but language riots in 1968 caused the fall of the government when they proposed to extend the French-speaking section of the University of Louvain (or, in Flemish, Leuven). Though the 1968–69 Official Languages Act declared both French and English official languages in Canada, and gave them equal status in all aspects of federal administration, the Quebec government has been far from satisfied with the reality of English domination, and has threatened to secede over language-related issues. And throughout the decades since 1969, there has been friction between the French-speaking and English speaking communities, reflected in actions such as the trampling of the Quebec flag and public petitions in Ontario against bilingual highway signs. In the former Soviet Union,  glasnost  and  perestroika  brought in their wake a desire for increased independence among minority language groups. But Russian speakers have also felt concerned about their language rights.

Many minorities would like to gain official status for their languages, but the costs in terms |of providing services and information in all official languages are considerable, and most governments count them carefully. In Canada, for instance, as well as French speakers and the indigenous Canadian peoples, such as the Cree and Mohawk, there are many other Canadian minorities – Italians, Portuguese, Chinese and Ukrainians, for instance. Together they make up about 27 per cent of the total Canadian population. Many resent the special status of the French, who make up only 23 per cent of the population. Providing services, information, legal representation and, in some places, education in just two official languages is an expensive business. It seems unlikely other minorities will earn such rights easily.

PLANNING FOR A NATIONAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

Form, functions and attitudes

What is involved in developing a code or variety (whether dialect or language) so that is suitable for official use? Addressing this challenge involves issues relating to the form of the variety, the functions it serves, and the attitudes that people hold towards it.  There are generally four interrelated steps:

1.    Selection :   choosing the variety or code to be developed.   

2.    Codification :   standardizing its structural or linguistic features. This kind of ‘linguistic processing’ is known as  corpus planning.    

3.    Elaboration :   extending its functions for use in new domains. This involves developing the necessary linguistic resources for handling new concepts and contexts.

4.    Securing its acceptance.  The status of the new variety is important, and so people’s attitudes to the variety being developed must be considered. Steps may be needed to enhance its prestige, for instance, and to encourage people to develop pride in the language, or loyalty towards it. This is known as  status planning  or  prestige planning.  

LANGUAGE PLANNING IN THEORY

One way of distinguishing "language policy" from "language planning" is to consider "language policy" as the expression of the ideological orientations and views, and "language planning" as the actual proposal that makes up their implementation. In this session, I will introduce some of the most important concepts relevant to the issue.

In the literature concerned with "language planning", the American-Norwegian sociolinguist Einar Haugen is often mentioned as the person who gave birth to the concept. In the article "Language planning in Modern Norway", which was widely acknowledged after its second edition in 1968, Haugen introduced and attempted to define the concept in this way "...an activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance of writers and speakers in a non-homogeneous speech community" (Haugen 1968(1959):673). And this activity, in the specific case of modern Norway, was closely linked to the country´s separation from Denmark. What follows from this definition is that language policy was seen as "corpus planning only", meaning restricted to the standardization of a language. This would in most cases refer to the one and only national language.

In the late sixties and early seventies, the scientific interest in language planning mainly applied to a third world context where the establishment of one standardized national language was regarded - from a Western European perspective - as a prerequisite for modernization, if not as the main tool for uniting and building up a nation. From this follows a tendency to consider language planning as an activity which has as its main goal to solve problems and to provoke changes in the society concerned. Two decades - and quite a lot of attempts to define - after Haugen introduced his definition of "language planning" the sociolinguist Robert L. Cooper proposed another one which was somewhat more modern: "language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their codes" (Cooper 1989:45). Before ending up with this broad definition, Cooper goes through 12 earlier definitions of the term by relating them all to the question: "...who plans what for whom and why". This is how the question of what functions are attributed to what languages is touched upon, a question which has prevailed ever since the birth of the discipline. Cooper´s definition differs from former ones (such as for instance Fishman 1968, Rubin and Jernudd 1971) in as far as it does not consider language planning to be necessarily oriented towards problem-solving (a goal that in many third-world countries has failed so far) and in as far as it does not necessarily have "progress" as its main end. Accordingly, it restricts neither the planners, nor those who will be affected by the planning. Thus, Cooper is on the one hand questioning the western European philosophy of "evolution and modernization" and on the other hand the monopole of a state to do language planning. And he is deliberately not referring to one (national) language, but to language or languages as such, and hereby opening the door to another understanding of what "the natural state of things" is: adopting a multilingual perspective rather than a monolingual one. Einar Haugen himself has indeed contributed to this development, he was the one to introduce in the 70´s the concept of "language ecology" which certainly reflects a multilingual perspective (Haugen 1972).

In order to be able to understand, describe and analyze "linguistic situations", Cooper operationalizes "language planning" by dividing it into three sub-dimensions, which are nevertheless closely interrelated and interdependent: Corpus planning which refers to intervention in the forms of a language, status planning which concerns choices in terms of status of a language vis-a-vis other languages (official, national etc.) - and acquisition planning which concerns the teaching and learning of languages - national as well as second and foreign languages.

Whereas status planning can serve to turn a language into a prestigious one, corpus planning elaborates on the potential functions in ensuring that the language dealt with has the necessary terminology to function as the medium of administration, education, etc. Acquisition planning can be - and often is - regarded as a subordinate dimension of status planning. Referring to the analytical tripartition of Cooper, and thus placing acquisition planning on the same level as status and corpus planning can be seen as a way of stressing its importance. In the rich scientific literature concerned with these matters, there is a general tendency to regard status planning as "the most interesting dimension" today.

I wish to stress a need to look into corpus and acquisition planning also. It is the contention of my paper that knowledge in all parts of language planning and maybe especially in the interrelations of the three dimensions is of great importance: is there any logic, any underlying rationale that binds together the status, the corpus and the acquisition planning of western European nation-states today? For instance, it would make sense to presume that it will have an influence on planning which foreign languages to teach in school whether the national language is of wider or minor international spread. Just as it would make sense to consider that it influences the way corpus planning is brought out whether the language in question is or is not national language in other states in other parts of the world.

SUMMARY

NATIONAL AND OFICIAL LANGUAGE

A national language is the language of a political, cultural and social unit. It is generally developed and used as a symbol of national unity. A national language may for instance represent the national identity of a nation or country. National language may alternatively be a designation given to one or more languages spoken as first languages in the territory of a country. Its function are to identify the nation and unite the people of the nation.

An official language, by contrast, is simply a language which may be used for government business. Over the official language in the nation is not indigenous language of that nation, but the language from the colonial. Its function is primarily utilitarian rather than symbolic. From 193 countries recognized, 178 countries have the official languages in national level. In the meanwhile official languages, English is the most recognize as a official language.

LANGUAGE PLANNING IN THEORY

One way of distinguishing "language policy" from "language planning" is to consider "language policy" as the expression of the ideological orientations and views, and "language planning" as the actual proposal that makes up their implementation.