Language democratization needs more understanding

By Riyadi Santosa

SURAKARTA (JP): An article by A. Chaedar Alwasilah titled Language democratization a must, on July 3 in The Jakarta Post, suggested that language education and political education scores language democratization as a revolution of understanding language as a medium, practice and representation of power.

This is true in the sense that language is, in fact, a linguistically, socioculturally and ideologically constructed phenomenon. In this idea, language always occurs in the form of text or discourse as a representation of a verbal social process.

In other words, language as text or discourse is a verbal social process realizing particular cultural and ideological norms and values in a particular context of a situation. But the writer seems to fail to figure out all aspects of language as text or discourse in that he suggests that language democratization merely deals with the eradication of the use of political jargon and euphemism.

No one would deny that his citation of the former regime's jargon such as mikul duwur mendem jero (respect the living and honor the dead), lengser keprabon, madeg pandito (to abdicate and become a sage) represents the top-down political bureaucratic system, which is, in many ways, in favor of the ruling party and the government.

And everyone would agree that the use of euphemisms such as rawan pangan (food shortage), normally used to refer to kelaparan (hunger) etc., pragmatically manipulates and hides particular social realities.

Finally, we realize that these two linguistic aspects helped the old government to maintain the status quo of the whole political bureaucracy and successfully shaped people's less critical thought toward social, political and economical issues.

However, language democratization will not succeed by only eradicating the use of jargon and euphemism in political discourse, since political text or discourse as verbal social processes include more than just jargon and euphemism.

This will include the holistic understanding of "what", a discourse as a verbal social process, and "how", ways of introducing a discourse as a verbal social process.

The "what" aspect of discourse is a choice of register or style, covering phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar (jargon and euphemism are just a small part of aspects of lexicogrammar), cohesion and structure of discourse.

A choice of a register at all levels, simultaneously, reveals the speaker's or writer's perception, cognition, affection and response toward a particular social reality, which ultimately realizes the purpose of a discourse under a particular context of situation and context of culture.

This idea indicates a contextual configuration of what happens, where, when and how it happens (field), to whom, who is involved in the happening, including the relationships of those involved (tenor) and how these social realities are semiotically symbolized in a language (mode).

Meanwhile, the aspect of "how" tells ways of introducing political discourse to society, including how they behave, interact and respond to an issue socially and democratically in a text or discourse of a culture.

This aspect suggests the variation of ways of behaving, interacting and responding in a discourse across different cultures, including the sociopolitical shift in the era of pre- and post-New Order regime.

The "what" and "how" of language as discourse are very important aspects to consider in implementing language democratization, because people may have their own ideas of democracy. Just to provide a few, some of the writer's research about editorials in national newspapers such as: Kompas, Suara Pembaruan, Jawa Pos, Republika, Suara Karya, Indonesia Times in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 show that the old regime arrogantly chose jargon, euphemism, particular grammar, attitudinal epithet, one-sided argument types of text in its political discourses.

This shows the employment of right-wing antagonist to maintain the status quo of its social and cultural, political and economic policies.

In addition, oppressing people so that they do not argue with the government and doing this by imposing tough, one-sided ethic codes of journalism results in the deterioration of freedom of speech as a representation of democracy.

Meanwhile, during the present reform era, there have been a lot of debates which criticize the government one-sidedly or even try to mock it. These examples show two different extremes of ideology. On the one hand, the old regime represents an absolute power or authority. On the other hand, people's one-sided criticism and mocking of the government are verbal anarchy.

Democracy is neither one of them. Democracy is neither one- sided, absolute nor anarchic. It is between them, proportional, multi-angled. It provides opportunities to speak, but imposes the obligation to listen to others. Thus, verbal social processes through various media are the major medium to agree or disagree, to support or to oppose, to argue for or against an issue.

Then, it is quite clear that language democratization is not just a matter of eradicating jargon and euphemism in political discourse. It should also include the introduction of the aspects of "what" and "how" of the discourse. People must know that a particular context of a situation in a culture will select the register or style of a discussion.

Therefore, they must be able to use the appropriate phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar, cohesion and text structure, which would simultaneously reach the ultimate goal of a text, or the social function of a discourse.

For example, in a culture, rising intonation may indicate question, expression of doubt, or anger if followed by the high pitch of stress. On the other hand, falling intonation may reveal the complete opposite.

Meanwhile, the use of jargon or euphemism may be used by every ruling party or government, since this language has the power to attract the masses, but the opposite could also manipulate or pollute the truth.

In addition, people must be aware of the presence of attitudinal words/lexes which can show subjectivity and trigger emotion which tend to exaggerate the truth, whereas descriptive words depict more objectivity and reality.

The choice of a particular type of grammar: transitivity, mood and theme in a discourse etc, show how a speaker or writer perceive the physical and social realities and how he realizes them in semiotical symbols of a language.

How one sees the others, and how their relationship in a discourse can be seen through this semiotic resources. A particular type of cohesion applied in discourse also determines how logic is developed in a discourse; congruently or incongruently.

Finally, the goal of a discourse, simultaneously, is wrapped in a text structure of a discourse. This semiotic resource also organizes the ways people behave, interact, or respond to an issue one-sidedly or proportionally.

Therefore, based on all of these semiotic resources, one can see whether a speaker or a writer acts as a right-wing antagonist, a left-wing antagonist, a right-wing protagonist, or a left-wing protagonist; or whether he behaves democratically or not, whether he maintains the status quo or challenges it.

In this idea, then, a language democratization program will lead people to learn whether a political discourse is proportional or multi-angled, tells the truth or spreads lies, maintains or challenges the status quo as a antagonist or protagonist, and how this is realized in phonology/graphology, lexicogrammar, cohesion and text structure, and how they behave democratically: to agree or disagree through the linguistic systems of symbol.

This is not as simple as it looks, again, because what changes is not something on the surface, but goes down deep to the heart of the people's cultural behavior.

So far, we have been caught in a cultural involution of the verbal social processes. As we have experienced, we have been accustomed to a less democratic political condition for the last 32 years. One may, unconsciously, bear the old tradition to unfold his political views, so that he still uses and chooses the old style of dull, arrogant political discourse.

On the other hand, others are found to be difficult to commit democratically because of the long deadly trauma, that unconsciously they still apply the discourse of an oppressed people. Or they may be overwhelmed by the idea of wild democracy which often turns into anarchy.

Second, language democratization programs could be given not only to students, but also to the majority of the people of Indonesia, including farmers, workers, vendors, employees, etc.

This would not be easy. It would need consistent political will from the government, the whole nation's patience, continuous and intensive efforts and would take a long time to see the final result.

The writer is a lecturer at Sebelas Maret University's School of Letters, Surakarta.