Is there such a thing as 'Indonesian English'?<\/p>\n
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Globalization has had a remarkable impact on
\nlanguage policies and language education. People are now facing
\nglobal competition in all walks of life -- politics, economy, and
\nthe service industries. To survive the competition, they have to
\nbe able to communicate in English, the most widely used language
\nof global communication.<\/p>\n
Non-native speakers of English have been estimated at over 300
\nmillion, outnumbering native speakers. Most international
\ncommunication takes place between non-native speakers with
\ndifferent language and cultural backgrounds.<\/p>\n
More people now realize that their first and national language
\nis far from sufficient for technological advancement,
\ninternational communication, and other areas. Many vernaculars
\nwill eventually lose their vitality, and will only attract
\nresearchers.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia we anticipate the rapid demise of minor
\nvernaculars and only the eight major ones will survive: Javanese,
\nSundanese, Maduranese, Minangkabaunese, Bugisnese, Bataknese,
\nBanjarnese, and Balinese. To anticipate this linguistic
\ncompetition, we must redefine our policies and education
\nregarding language.<\/p>\n
It is not realistic at all to invest energy and money in
\nmaintaining the minor vernaculars. It would be wiser to invest
\nthem in developing the major vernaculars, Indonesian, and global
\nlanguages, especially English.<\/p>\n
Global and intercultural communication intensifies as more
\npeople get access to information technologies such as the
\nInternet, television, etc. People's nationality, language,
\nculture, and profession are major factors that shape the
\ncharacter of a variety of global languages.<\/p>\n
Such interactions definitely stimulate the creation of mixed
\nEnglish. Thus imposing a \"standard\" defined by native speakers is
\nimpractical. The shared \"nativized Englishes\" including
\nIndonesian English, \"must be accepted from within, rather than be
\nfelt as something imposed from outside,\" said the linguist Pride
\nin 1982.<\/p>\n
Linguists say that foreign language learners develop a
\nlanguage variety called \"interlanguage\" characterized by a number
\nof features such as systematicity, approximation, transitional
\ncompetence and idiosyncrasy. In discussing English as a global
\nand localized language we need to critically review this theory.<\/p>\n
Language is no longer used merely for communication, but for
\n\"fast\" communication. People are invariably under pressure to
\nrespond to various problems without delay. When e-mailing, they
\ndo not have enough time to edit messages. Minor mistakes are
\nconsciously left uncorrected. Obviously, proficiency is the first
\nand foremost, accuracy second.<\/p>\n
Therefore Indonesian English has its own right to develop
\ninternally and externally. Over the years this variety of
\nEnglish will be established, not fossilized -- a systematized
\nvariety of English specific to Indonesians.<\/p>\n
From the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic arguments for
\nrecognizing Indonesian English, the following questions are: What
\nmaterials are to be taught? And how to teach them?<\/p>\n
The current teaching of English in Indonesia from elementary
\nto college level is far from the ideal: obviously this is not a
\nproblem of variety or genre of English, but more of learning and
\nteaching. Given the current educational policies and
\ncircumstances, the teaching of any recommended variety of English
\nwill end up with similar results.<\/p>\n
Common problems include unskilled teachers, poor facilities,
\nand unfavorable learning environments, to mention just a few.<\/p>\n
Recognizing the emerging Indonesian English does not
\nnecessarily mean teaching it as a new school subject. Rather, it
\nwould mean our anticipation and professional judgment of the
\nemerging variety of English, which slowly develops over a
\nrelatively long period. An \"Indonesian English\" could be
\nestablished when the following conditions are fulfilled.<\/p>\n
First, the existence of school graduates who are bilingual in
\nIndonesian and English, which presupposes \"English as a foreign
\nlanguage\", where learning and teaching oral proficiency are
\nemphasized across the curriculum -- more or less similar to the
\nsituation in Singapore.<\/p>\n
Second, university graduates, especially college professors,
\nwho are productive enough to publish in English. Yet to our
\ndismay, most do not know how to write even in their first
\nlanguage!<\/p>\n
Admittedly, Indonesian English would be a variety of the
\n\"standard\" English, based on the grammar of English -- which has
\nlong been overemphasized in school.<\/p>\n
Indonesian English as a by-product of bilingualism and its
\nestablishment is thus a matter of consequence: no need to develop
\na specific curriculum, methodology, and textbook, except for
\nexperimental purposes.<\/p>\n
Today's \"English for specific purposes\" program for
\nundergraduate non-English majors is a review of the high school
\nEnglish grammar, plus reading and translation exercises based on
\ntexts relevant to the field of study. This repetition is telling
\nevidence of the failure of English teaching at high school
\nlevels. This ESP course does not seem to generate any type of
\nseemingly acclaimed academic Indonesian English.<\/p>\n
A particular language variety, including the emerging
\nIndonesian English, will noticeably be recognized for certain
\nsocial functions, such as to indicate formality and informality.
\nOne theory of communicative competence says that being
\ncommunicative implies one's ability to use a certain variety of
\nlanguage.<\/p>\n
Thus, students must be taught the sociolinguistic principles,
\nnamely the who, what, when, why, and how of the emerging
\nIndonesian English. By way of comparison, Singaporeans would be
\ntaught when they should not use the lah particle, though it adds
\na colorful quality to the \"low\" variety of Singapore English.<\/p>\n
Any nativized English allows deviation from the standard
\nEnglish. Recognizing Indonesian English suggests allowing the use
\nof its own linguistic criteria accepted by its speakers.
\nTherefore, it would be a big mistake to judge Indonesian English
\nwith reference to standard English.<\/p>\n
In view of the resources at hand and the fact that not all
\nIndonesians need to master English for global competition, users
\nwould be classified into two groups: the extraordinary and the
\nordinary. Group 1 constitutes the cream of the cream who master
\nEnglish, both oral and written. They could be graduate students
\nand professionals.<\/p>\n
Group 2 would be the majority, including high school leavers
\nwho might never use English for their career. A very good mastery
\nof Indonesian and basic English is adequate for this group.<\/p>\n
Indonesian English is not yet as established as Singaporean or
\nMalaysian English. Attractive though it may sound in theory, we
\ndo not yet have a very clear idea of just what it entails. It
\nwill be some time before we could document findings of research
\non its emerging patterns, variations, and use. These findings
\nare important for developing a sound language policy of English
\nvis-a-vis Indonesian and vernaculars.<\/p>\n
History witnesses that we have tried different policies,
\napproaches, and curricula -- which have all seemed to fail.
\nCaution would be needed to improve the present teaching of EFL in
\nIndonesia, instead of jumping onto the latest bandwagon of any
\nparticular suggested approach.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Graduate School of Universitas
\nPendidikan Indonesia in Bandung, West Java.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/is-there-such-a-thing-as-indonesian-english-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}