Language education builds critical thinking<\/p>\n
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): The following is a response to Riyadi Santosa's
\narticle Language democratization needs more understanding in The
\nJakarta Post's July 13 edition. The article was written in
\nreaction to my earlier piece, Language democratization a must, in
\nthe Post's July 3 issue. Santosa's elaboration on the \"what\" and
\n\"how\" aspects of a discourse helps readers understand other
\nimportant facets of language democratization that I did not touch
\non specifically.<\/p>\n
Under his analytical framework, the bureaucracy and the people
\nare the \"who\", representing the unequal status quo. The political
\nmessage, including indoctrination, constitutes the \"what\", while
\nthe \"how\", or the medium used, is the political language -- the
\nmost obvious feature of which is the use of political jargon and
\neuphemism.<\/p>\n
Santosa's citation of his own research that \"the old regime
\narrogantly chose jargon, euphemism, particular grammar,
\nattitudinal epithet and one-sided argument types of text in its
\npolitical discourse\" obviously promotes his argument. In other
\nwords, Santosa agrees that it is euphemism, not grammar or the
\nrepresentation (phonological or graphological), that really
\nmatters.<\/p>\n
To the list of sociolinguistic facets mentioned above, one may
\nadd the \"why\" aspect. Ruling regimes all over the world, by hook
\nor by crook, try to maintain the status quo and dominate the
\npeople.<\/p>\n
During the New Order era, editors and reporters were often
\ncalled, threatened or even persecuted to control their reports
\ndealing with political or sensitive issues. The so-called pers
\nyang bertanggungjawab (responsible press) itself was a one-sided
\npolicy by the government to control the press.<\/p>\n
It is true that language consists of or is analyzable in terms
\nof register or style, phonology, graphology, grammar, cohesion
\nand coherence and grammar of discourse.<\/p>\n
Such a scholarly and technical analysis of
\nmicrosociolinguistics is undoubtedly important and intellectually
\nchallenging, especially for language scholars, but it is not
\nnecessarily relevant to a discussion on politics as part of
\nmacrosociolingusitics.<\/p>\n
It has been evident in the literature of language and
\npolitical discourse that in-depth analysis focuses on diction --
\nnamely the choice of words. It is the word more than anything
\nelse, such as tone or style, that carries the meaning of an
\nexpression.<\/p>\n
In our current political discourse, regardless of how and when
\nit is pronounced, the popular phrase mikul dhuwur mendem jero
\n(respect the living and honor the dead) for example, is perceived
\nas a concept diametrically opposed to democratization.<\/p>\n
The Watergate scandal in the United States shows us an example
\nof how the Watergate conspirators tried to distort and mask
\nreality and to avoid responsibility or guilt for the lies and
\ncrimes they committed. The Watergate investigation revealed the
\nso-called language of non-responsibility, a prominent feature of
\nwhich is the frequent misuse of technical jargon. When
\nappropriated for use in politics, such jargon often serves to
\nmask the true nature of what is happening.<\/p>\n
Such language also utilized passive voice rather than active
\nvoice. Instead of saying \"I was curious\" or \"I thought of it\", a
\nWatergate witness would say \"it piqued my curiosity\" or \"it
\ncrossed my mind\". Yet again, in analyzing the syntax, we must
\nanalyze the vocabulary (jargon, euphemism and political language)
\nbound by the syntax.<\/p>\n
Both Santosa and I share the idea that the majority of people,
\ndue to a lack of education, are politico-linguistically
\nvictimized. Few of them are fully conscious of the ways, subtle
\nor not subtle, in which the language wrapped in the ideology of
\nnational development is used dishonestly to mislead and
\nmanipulate.<\/p>\n
We are reminded of past political campaigns in which the
\npeople were abused and victimized politically, especially by the
\nruling political organization. Their very perception of the world
\nand national developments was clearly shaped by political
\nlanguage.<\/p>\n
All these are reasons enough to redefine language education as
\nan effort to liberate the people from the systematic linguistic
\nvictimization by politicians. Such a liberation begins with
\nawareness of the manipulation of political language. Euphemism,
\nfor example, will never show any signs of disappearing. Thus the
\nawareness of euphemism should be a goal of language education. In
\nthis framework, language education vis-a-vis language
\ndemocratization should be redefined accordingly.<\/p>\n
The people, including the bureaucracy, should learn to be
\nefficient in using language -- that is, when dealing with
\ncommunicating government policies. By way of comparison, the
\nFederal Security Agency in the United States, with nearly 100
\nclients on its books, once analyzed its communication lines. The
\nsurvey showed that office documents could be cut 20 percent to 50
\npercent with the result of improving clarity and saving
\ntaxpayers' money in paper and payrolls. The study also showed
\nthat linguistic efficiency correlates positively with economic
\nefficiency.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, where oral communication is more prevalent,
\nlinguistic inefficiency is worse than that described above. Most
\nIndonesian bureaucrats do not know how to speak, let alone write,
\neffectively. The reasons are numerous, but the most logical one
\nis insufficient education.<\/p>\n
The majority of our bureaucrats hold only high school
\ndiplomas. Their language education was textbook-oriented,
\ncreating a skill-based use of the language instead of an
\nenvironment-oriented and critical thinking-based understanding.
\nIt is no exaggeration that the failure of political communication
\nnowadays is caused by the low communication ability of the
\nbureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Language education should be designed to enhance people's
\ncritical thinking. Language education professionals now must
\nreject the notion that language study is simply to develop
\nlanguage skills and basic employment skills. The most important
\naspect of language education is to teach the use of language as a
\nvehicle of democracy. A commitment to democracy requires a
\ncommitment to the struggle for language rights, including the
\ncountry's regional languages. The policy allowing schools to
\nintroduce regional languages as part of muatan lokal (the local
\ncontent) is a commendable measure to promote democracy.<\/p>\n
Being critical means that one must be able to understand
\nhidden truths and to uncover the essence of a message presented
\nin different genres, styles or varieties of language. In 1971,
\nthe National Council of Teachers of English in the U.S. passed a
\nresolution to \"find means to study dishonest and inhumane uses of
\nlanguage and literature by advertisers, to bring offenses to
\npublic attention, to propose classroom techniques for preparing
\nchildren to cope with commercial propaganda\".<\/p>\n
Language teachers in Indonesia should also follow suit. Their
\nvoice so far has not been heard and will never be listened to
\nunless their existence is recognized as a potential for political
\neducation.<\/p>\n
Reform in language curricula is necessary to empower them to
\nfunction optimally in the democratization process. Textbook-based
\nlanguage education and language skill acquisition are not bad,
\nbut they are not effective in developing cultural literacy needed
\nfor living in the era of globalization.<\/p>\n
We are living in a world increasingly bound by the mass media,
\nwhere reality is simplified into symbols, namely language. In no
\nway do we have time to recheck secondhand reports with firsthand
\nobservations. We are now overwhelmed by perplexing artificial
\ncreations of the mass media. To survive, we have to count on our
\ncritical thinking skills.<\/p>\n
Literacy should be perceived as one's ability to function
\nculturally in society to the fullest of one's potential. From
\nthis point of view, the environment, including the work place,
\nmust be the substitute for textbooks and critical thinking for
\nthe four language skills.<\/p>\n
For bureaucrats, literacy means the ability to communicate
\nintelligently, effectively and democratically, given their
\nmission to serve the public.<\/p>\n
The writer is a graduate school lecturer at the Teachers
\nTraining Institute, Bandung.<\/p>\n
Window: During the New Order era, editors and reporters were
\noften called, threatened or even persecuted to control their
\nreports dealing with political or sensitive issues.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/language-education-builds-critical-thinking-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}