Lament for minor languages<\/p>\n
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): All countries have their own language policies
\nto ascertain that the languages used facilitate national
\ndevelopment. In the case of Indonesia, language planning should
\naddress three different areas -- the national language, ethnic
\nlanguages and foreign languages, especially English.<\/p>\n
The 1994 curriculum is an inseparable part of the national
\nlanguage planning. In most cases, language planning is a
\ngovernment-sponsored, long-term, sustained and deliberate effort
\nto solve communication problems in all walks of life; social,
\npolitical, economic, educational and cultural.<\/p>\n
As a country of diverse ethnic groups and hundreds of minor
\nlanguages, Indonesia is highly vulnerable to national
\ndisintegration, a concern shared by the founding fathers of the
\nnation more than 50 years ago. The motto Bhineka Tunggal Ika
\n(Unity in Diversity) as they aptly proclaimed then, was a genuine
\nindication of sociolinguistic as well as politicolinguistic
\nawareness. The present politicians and power holders should
\ndevelop awareness of language problems as the founding fathers
\ndemonstrated.<\/p>\n
Many times bureaucrats are criticized for their sloppy use of
\nIndonesian and retort saying that language problems are to be
\nleft to language specialists. This naive attitude shows a lack of
\nappreciation and understanding of the function of language as a
\nmeans of political and national development.<\/p>\n
The rights of ethnic languages are recognized in the 1945
\nConstitution, saying that these minor languages are to be
\ndeveloped and protected by the government. They are still widely
\nused in the family, social and informal gatherings, and sometimes
\neven in formal settings.<\/p>\n
However, in the cities where various ethnic groups mix and
\ninterethnic marriage is common, the use of these ethnic languages
\ndecreases. This phenomenon suggests that the more urbanized and
\nindustrialized the country is, the more developed and cultivated
\nthe national language, and the less developed and protected the
\nethnic languages become.<\/p>\n
As the 1928 Youth Pledge signifies, the Indonesian language
\nhas long been elevated to the position of the national language
\nat the cost of the minor languages, suggesting that politically,
\nno matter what, Indonesian takes precedence over the minor
\nlanguages. When Indonesia is committed to modernization and
\nindustrialization, leaving agriculture behind, Indonesian is
\nelevated to the status of the language of industrialization
\nbesides that of a national and state language.<\/p>\n
The minor languages, as they lack vitality for transferring
\nindustrialization, become less significant. The corollary goes
\nthat nationally speaking, the more industrialized the country is,
\nlinguistically the more homogeneous the country tends to be.<\/p>\n
With the free market policy era approaching, the mastery of
\nforeign languages, especially English, is imperative. We are now
\nthen witnessing the scene where English vis a vis Indonesian and
\nminor languages compete.<\/p>\n
It seems to be the case that this linguistic competition
\nparallels economic and cultural competition as part of global
\ncompetition. By no means will English take the position of a
\nnational language -- a phenomenon common among members and former
\nmembers of the British Commonwealth such as India and Singapore.<\/p>\n
However, people now have come to realize that to anticipate
\nand survive globalization, learning English is much more useful
\nthan learning the minor languages. This fact suggests that due to
\nglobalization, the vitality of minor languages is gradually
\ndecreasing.<\/p>\n
It is reasonable to argue that the best way to study language
\nplanning in a particular country is to review its language
\ncurriculum, simply because the curriculum reflects the
\ngovernment-authorized means to provide students with
\nopportunities for mastering language(s). To survive the ever-
\nchanging times, the curriculum needs to be evaluated and revised.<\/p>\n
Whatever we are offering in our schools today, it will define
\nthe language competence of the next generation. When we are
\nconcerned with nationalism and globalization, our language
\ncurriculum should then provide students with language competence
\nrelevant to nationalism and globalization.<\/p>\n
Long before the 1994 curriculum was implemented, parents in
\nbig cities for various reasons enthusiastically encouraged their
\nchildren to take English courses at private schools. As a result,
\nEnglish classes for children turned up everywhere.<\/p>\n
Noticing this tendency, the government considered it necessary
\nto evaluate and revise the old curriculum and to introduce the
\n1994 curriculum, which officially allows elementary schools to
\noffer English as a school subject under the umbrella of so-called
\n\"local content\".<\/p>\n
Under the local content policy, the school may offer a local
\nlanguage, traditional arts or English, provided that the school
\nmanages it. On the one hand, the policy necessarily reflects the
\ngovernment's commitment to monitoring if not supervising the
\npractice. However, this is not the case.<\/p>\n
My 11 year-old daughter was excited to learn English for the
\nfirst time and was eager to do the homework. My pride, however,
\nsoon faded away when I knew that her first assignment was to
\nidentify the subject and the predicate of the sentence. The
\nteacher -- whom I later found out was a volunteer and non-English
\nmajor -- apparently does not understand the psychology of
\nteaching English at the elementary level, let alone the
\nprinciples of communicative language teaching, an approach being
\npromoted nationally by the government.<\/p>\n
The illustration above is evidence that in many schools, the
\nteachers, headmasters, parents and students are jumping upon the
\nbandwagon, without realizing that the local content policy
\nchallenges professional accountability on the part of teachers,
\nheadmasters, school curriculum developers and the National
\nAssociation of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language in
\nIndonesia (TEFLIN).<\/p>\n
English should be taught by certified elementary English
\ninstructors. Otherwise, our kids become a victim of emotional
\nrather than professional ambitions.<\/p>\n
Presently most elementary teachers are grade teachers instead
\nof school subject teachers. The fact of the matter is that the
\nschools are not ready to offer English as a school subject.<\/p>\n
Apparently, the government has failed to anticipate this
\nproblem. Trained elementary English teachers should have been
\nmade available before the curriculum was officially implemented.<\/p>\n
The office of regional education should be responsible for
\nmonitoring the schools on whether they employ professional
\nteachers. We could not assume that Teachers Training Institute
\n(IKIP) graduates are professional enough to teach at the
\nelementary level, simply because their major is English
\neducation.<\/p>\n
It is high time IKIPs -- especially state IKIPs -- opened at
\nleast two year diploma English education programs that train
\nstudents to be elementary English teachers, otherwise English
\nteaching at the elementary level will go uncontrolled and
\nunmonitored -- a fact that is contradictory to the function of
\nlanguage planning, that is, a government-initiated and conscious
\neffort to improve the quality of language education.<\/p>\n
Language planning is conscious language management. To be
\nsuccessful, language education should be planned in a systemic
\nway. It should pervade all levels of the system: Classroom
\nsettings, teacher training, textbook and material development,
\nand local as well as central government.<\/p>\n
The teaching and learning of English in elementary schools
\nshould seriously consider the nature of learning a foreign
\nlanguage, the instructional system and the governance system that
\ngoverns the whole language educational system. Such an approach
\nto language education involving ethnic languages, the national
\nlanguage and foreign languages is indeed radical, difficult and
\nrisky.<\/p>\n
Are we serious about language education? Without such an
\napproach, we will almost certainly be condemned to a language
\neducation system that does not fulfill our students' needs.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the Teachers Training Institute
\n(IKIP) of Bandung, West Java.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lament-for-minor-languages-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}