Preparing bahasa Indonesia for the new millennium<\/p>\n
By Setiono<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A two-day seminar on the politics of national
\nlanguage held recently in Cisarua, Bogor, south of here, reflects
\nan awareness of the urgency in preparing bahasa Indonesia to face
\nthe new millennium, with the uncontrollable influx of foreign
\nlanguages.<\/p>\n
The seminar, which was carried out as a follow-up of the 8th
\nLanguage Congress held in 1998, was intended to reevaluate and to
\nrevise the national language policy. The policy is no longer
\ndeemed suitable in meeting the needs and interests of Indonesia's
\nmodern society. This suggests that the society using the language
\nplays a paramount role in the process of language development.<\/p>\n
In this regard, the language planning agency which is
\nrepresented by the Center for Language Development should embrace
\nthe society's aspirations related to language development.<\/p>\n
The fact that Indonesian language planning has never been
\nsuccessful may stem from two fundamental reasons. First and
\nforemost, Indonesian language planners failed to take into
\naccount the crucial variables of language planning that include
\nthe role of nongovernment agencies, and most importantly the role
\nof aspirations voiced by the general public.<\/p>\n
In other words, language planners adopted the top-down
\napproach in every process in language planning, and did not
\nprovide any room for society members to participate in any
\ndecision-making.<\/p>\n
Second -- and a point which is related to the first area -- in
\nthe planning stage language policy is determined solely by
\nbureaucratic agencies, and consequently, the byproducts of
\nlanguage planning might not reflect the needs and interests of
\nthe community.<\/p>\n
The legitimacy of planning products or outcomes is less likely
\nto be acknowledged by the language users unless a significant
\nproportion of the population perceives it as meeting their needs
\nand interest.<\/p>\n
Language planning theory affirms that any language problem
\nprocess should consider not only purely linguistic aspects but
\nalso social components in which the language is used.<\/p>\n
Rubin and Jernudd (1971) explicitly assert that in order to be
\nmeaningful and productive, language planning needs to specify in
\ndetail what kind of language planning would be useful under what
\ncircumstances and for what kind of people speaking what kinds of
\nlanguages.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is obvious that language planning cannot be isolated
\nfrom its sociolinguistic environment, which has the potential to
\nprovide significant feedback for the planning that has been
\nexecuted.<\/p>\n
As a language planning agency, the Center for Language
\nDevelopment should become a societal institution instead of an
\ninstitution which was part of a bureaucratic component of a
\ngovernmental organization.<\/p>\n
Past experience provides evidence that such an institution has
\nno control over language use among elite bureaucrats. As a
\nresult, the practice of manipulating and engineering the language
\nbecame rampant. As such, the center functioned as a sterile
\nlanguage institution.<\/p>\n
The misuse of language for bureaucratic purposes has in fact
\ncreated stagnancy within society. According to Daulat P.
\nTampubolon (1999), the manipulation and propaganda in using a
\nsociety's language may cause what he calls \"the death of a
\nlanguage\".<\/p>\n
Tampubolon classified several symptoms in the Indonesian mass
\nmedia. These were linguistic repression, referring to the
\nrepression and limitation in expressing one's thoughts and
\nfeelings through the language; semantic monopoly, referring to
\nthe monopoly of words, sentences, and discourses containing
\npolitical thoughts; excessive use of acronyms, referring to the
\nprocess of the creation of a word through confusing acronyms; and
\nimportation of foreign languages, denoting the excessive adoption
\nof foreign languages which do not conform with the Indonesian
\nlanguage system.<\/p>\n
As for the importation of foreign languages, it should be
\nnoted with caution that the arrival of foreign languages is a
\nnatural and inevitable language phenomena. There seems to be no
\nvalid proof that an imported language will cause the \"death of a
\nlanguage\".<\/p>\n
The adoption of foreign languages into the Indonesian language
\nare explicitly stipulated in the word-coining policy, and thus is
\nnot against our language policy. On the other hand, the arrival
\nof foreign languages will eventually enrich the Indonesian
\nlanguage lexicon.<\/p>\n
However, what concerns us here are the first three symptoms
\nmentioned above. Linguistic repression may discourage and erode
\nour society's creative and critical thinking. It may eventually
\nmake members of society reluctant to communicate their creative
\nideas and thoughts in both spoken and written language, and
\nprompt them to take everything for granted as the truth. As a
\nresult, they will show their indifference to social issues and
\ntake everything for granted.<\/p>\n
Similarly, a semantic monopoly and the use of excessive
\nacronyms may contaminate the Indonesian language. Accordingly,
\nsuch a move might lead to a \"semantic deterioration\": a shift in
\nmeanings from ones that possess good connotations into ones
\npossessing the worst connotations.<\/p>\n
All the accounts above imply the urgent need to form
\n\"community based planning\", in which the representatives of the
\ncommunity are actively involved in the process of language
\nplanning and decision-making.<\/p>\n
In an attempt to build a critical and innovative community,
\nthis type of planning may offer significant benefits. They are:<\/p>\n
* as language planning takes place in the context of political
\nplanning, community-based planning can be used to control and
\nmonitor the misuse of language among the elite bureaucrats. It is
\nimportant to note here that apart from its power to unify a
\ndiverse society, language may, if used improperly, have the
\npotential to disintegrate a diverse population.<\/p>\n
* the collaborative work between the language center and
\nnongovernment agencies represented by all segments of language
\nusers (including groups of journalists, media commentators and
\nlanguage teachers) is more likely to produce beneficial and
\ndesirable effects. Empirical research provides evidence that
\nnongovernment agencies disseminate vocabulary with far greater
\nsuccess than a government bureau. (Setiono, The Jakarta Post,
\nOct. 31, 1998).<\/p>\n
* in a multilingual society like Indonesia, community-based
\nplanning plays an important role in minimizing language conflicts
\nand linguistic inequity which have become explosive issues.<\/p>\n
* the presence of community representatives in language
\nplanning and decision-making can reduce barriers between
\nlinguistic minorities and the centralized policy-makers.<\/p>\n
* finally, the active involvement of all varieties of language
\nusers may promote national unity rather than promote ethnicity.<\/p>\n
It is hoped that the above discussion may stimulate critical
\nthinking in solving language problems and eventually encourage
\nIndonesian language planning practitioners to pursue future
\nresearch. Continuous research on language planning is indeed
\nmandatory for the sake of our language development in the next
\nmillennium.<\/p>\n
The writer is a teaching staff member at the School of English
\nEducation at Atma Jaya Catholic University in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/preparing-bahasa-indonesia-for-the-new-millennium-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}