Bureaucracy affects press language<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A seminar titled "The role of the mass-media in
\npromoting the Malay-Indonesian language" recently examined
\nbureaucracy and its influence on language and the media. The
\nseminar, organized by the Association of Indonesian Journalists
\n(PWI) and featuring experts from Malaysia and Brunei Darusalam,
\nwas held in Bandar Seribegawan on March 3-4.<\/p>\n
The debate raised some interesting points, two of which
\nappeared in the Kompas daily (March 5 and March 6) and deserve
\nattention. First, what kind of linguistic relationship exists
\nbetween government officials and bureaucrats on the one hand, and
\njournalists and professional linguists on the other? Second, how
\ncan we find a modus vivendi between the standardization and the
\ndevelopment of language? And who is responsible for each of these
\nthings?<\/p>\n
Let me try to deal with the two questions, not as a
\nprofessional linguist but as an active user of the Indonesian
\nlanguage. Journalists and the mass media have been accused of
\ndistorting the use of the Indonesian language. This is due to two
\nfactors. On one hand, journalists are subject to the journalistic
\ngenre. Rosihan Anwar, a senior Indonesian journalist, has said on
\nmany occasions that this genre is basically characterized by the
\n"language economy". This means sentences are as short as possible
\nor as long as necessary. The style should be simple or as
\nsophisticated as necessary. Superfluous words which are used only
\nfor ornamental purposes should be eliminated. The use of
\nprefixes, suffixes and other auxiliary terms should also be
\navoided.<\/p>\n
In this way, journalistic language tends to be precise, less
\nbeautiful than literary language, and less sophisticated and less
\nformal than scientific language. Language economy is intended to
\nserve the reporting of facts and not opinions or analysis. This
\noften creates the impression that journalistic language is
\nmonolithic. But with such simplicity and clarity, does
\njournalistic language become an efficient and effective language,
\nor a poorly truncated from of correct and beautiful language?<\/p>\n
This situation is still aggravated by the fact journalists
\nhave to convey what is said by their informants. In the case of
\nthe Indonesian press, most of the informants are government
\nofficials or high-ranking bureaucrats who are known for using
\nlanguage with a lot of linguistic distortion in phonetics (the
\npronunciation of suffix (kan as ken), syntax (the use of
\nsuperfluous daripada), or even in semantics (the use of excessive
\neuphemistic forms or abbreviations, which are not always publicly
\nknown).<\/p>\n
Here we are faced with some difficulties, both journalistic
\nand linguistic. If journalists have to report on what their
\ninformants say, they have to choose either to stick to what was
\nsaid or to reshape what was said and run the risk of changing the
\nsubstance of the story. Be that as it may, the habit of using
\nhigh-ranking officials as the main source of information has led
\nto a situation where bureaucratic language exerts a powerful and
\nimmediate influence on the use of journalistic language.<\/p>\n
In contrast to this, are journalists who do their best to gain
\naccess to the event as it unfolds. These journalists have
\nrelatively more freedom to use the journalistic genre as they
\nwant to. But if the Indonesian media is more inclined to report
\nstatements than facts, and if most of the statements are still
\nfrom government officials, it is very unlikely the media will get
\nrid of bureaucratic language. One can therefore appreciate a
\nstatement by former Indonesian journalist Mochtar Lubis, who on
\nthe occasion of his 75th birthday said: "If I was still an active
\njournalist today, I would write more about the common people,
\ninstead of government officials going on same safari." (The
\nJakarta Post, March 7).<\/p>\n
The now defunct Tempo magazine was one among the very few
\nwhich consciously structured an alternative to the bureaucratic
\nuse of language. The journalistic essays of Goenawan Mohamad for
\nexample, which were widely known as Catatan Pinggir, were
\ncertainly far more literary than just journalistic pieces and by
\nno means bureaucratic.<\/p>\n
The habit of using government officials as the main source of
\ninformation does not matter much as long as they are able and
\naccustomed to using the standardized Indonesian language, which
\nshould be the language of government administration. In the case
\nof Indonesia, officials are inclined to imitate language mistakes
\ncommitted by their bosses. In turn, these mistakes are also made
\nby journalists reporting on the statements of those officials.
\nBut the question is why are language mistakes so easily
\ndisseminated and internalized among officials? The answer should
\nbe sought not in linguistics but rather in language behavior.<\/p>\n
Language in general, and the Indonesian language in
\nparticular, is not only a means of communication but also an
\nattribute of identity. According to an old Malay saying, Bahasa
\nmenentukan bangsa (the way one speaks indicates where one comes
\nfrom). The language of bureaucracy is also an attribute of power.
\nThose who work within bureaucracy tend to internalize the
\nlanguage used by their colleagues, and particularly their
\nbosses, in order to identify themselves as members of the
\nbureaucracy. Since bureaucracy is a mechanism to implement
\npower, bureaucratic language (including all the mistakes) plays
\nan important role in showing one's participation in wielding
\npower. In other words, language mistakes easily become a part of
\nsociety because they are an effective status symbol.<\/p>\n
The only way to improve the situation is not to blame
\njournalists for the mistakes in their reporting, but to introduce
\na new awareness among our bureaucrats that an appropriate status
\nsymbol for them is not bad language but correct language, as is
\nthe case with all modern bureaucracies. It is worth considering
\nwhether or not using standardized Indonesian should be included
\nas a precondition to recruit someone who wants to join the
\nbureaucracy. Another solution is to encourage journalists to
\ndepend less on official statements, and instead rely on direct
\naccess to facts and events in their reports.<\/p>\n
But the problem also questions the relationship between the
\nstandardization of language and the development of language. This
\nis a point of heated debate which is still raging among
\nprofessional linguists. The question is: should language be
\norganized and standardized in accordance with syntactical rules
\nwhich are established by professional linguists, or should
\nlanguage be left to the creativity of its users? If we take the
\nfirst choice, we are easily subject to the domination of some
\nlinguistic experts while ignoring what is happening among
\nlanguage users. If we take the second choice, we are easily led
\nto a situation where there are no rules at all. The development
\nof language is dependent upon the whim of its users, and all the
\nmistakes are justified simply because they are widely accepted.<\/p>\n
At this point the linguistic question turns into a
\nphilosophical one: is language normative or empirical by nature?
\nI would argue, language is basically empirical, but we can look
\nat it and even criticize it in terms of some norms. However, the
\nnorms which are to be applied should be open to discussion and
\nreview, where all the syntactical normative rules, are taken from
\nthe standardized syntax of Latin or Greek, as is the case with
\nthe traditional grammarian school.<\/p>\n
In reality, this means there must be some rules to allow
\npeople to orient themselves in language, though these rules must
\nbe open to correction and modification, just like language must
\nbe open to improvement and innovation. Language should not only
\nbe standardized, it also needs to be developed. It is subject not
\nonly to regulation, but also to innovation and creativity.
\nHowever, the creativity and development of language should be
\nbased on a minimum mastery of its rules. One can swerve from the
\nexisting rules in order to enable a new creation in language (for
\nexample through new metaphors, or through new syntactical
\nstructure), but this should only be carried out responsibly.
\nLanguage should not be created in contrast to or even despite the
\nrules, and not because of neglect of just because of the
\nignorance of the rules.<\/p>\n
To quote the golden formula of Noam Chomsky, the performance
\nof language users should be a realization of the competence of
\nthe language and not evidence of a lack of language competence.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/bureaucracy-affects-press-language-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }