Some considerations on [Indonesian] gov't language planning

[Harold F. Schiffman]

>>From the Jakarta Post, January 25, 2006

Some considerations on govt language planning
Setiono, Jakarta

It has been reported that National Education Ministry is considering a
draft bill on languages that would limit the use of foreign languages in
advertising and the media. The draft bill is said to contain 10 chapters
and 22 articles, 11 of which require the use of Bahasa Indonesia in the
print and electronic media, product packaging and commercials, and by
companies and on buildings. The basic reason given for proposing the bill
is to protect the many indigenous languages that exist in the country, so
that they will not be put in jeopardy. This reason implies two things.

First, that the use the foreign languages creates linguistic segregation.
Second, that using indigenous languages can maintain Indonesia's
traditions and cultures, and can promote nationalism among Indonesians.
However, to compel the use of Indonesian and to limit the use of foreign
languages, especially English, in the print and electronic media, as well
as in advertisements, is counterproductive because the use of English by
journalists and commentators is motivated by the nature of their work,
which requires an immediate understanding and responses from their
interlocutors.

Therefore, spontaneous utterances containing clusters of English words
representing thoughts, ideas and references from various sources and
spheres of life are common in journalistic language. Journalists, for
instance, do not always have the leisure to express their thoughts in
well-chosen and accurate Indonesian words. Consequently, as English words
are felt to be far more efficient than their Indonesian equivalents, their
use is natural in certain domains. A renowned German linguist, Uriel
Weinreich, once said that "the presence of loan words in any borrowing
language can be accounted for by the fact that using ready made
designations is more economic than describing things afresh".

To date, the influx of English words in various spheres such as politics,
economics, technology, commerce, industry, the mass media and government
administration underlines the fact that language is a social phenomenon,
whose existence always penetrates social life. The use of English in the
above domains also shows that journalists, writers, presenters and the
like exert a considerable influence over the society that uses the
language. It also demonstrates that nongovernment agencies disseminate
vocabulary far more successfully than government agencies like the
National Center for Language Development.

Implementing the language bill and substituting well-established English
words in the media and advertisements would hamper rather that enhance
communication. To find indigenous languages and words that can substitute
for foreign languages is not without problems. Indigenizing nativized
English words like institusi (institution), fokus (focus) and efektif
(effective) into pranata, pumpunan and mangkus, would create further
problems for language users who are not familiar with these words, and
accordingly much time would have to be spent in order to learn them. This
is particularly true in a multiethnic society like Indonesia. Changing the
English words into indigenous languages would only create confusion among
societies coming from different ethnic groups.

In fact, the use of foreign languages in advertising and the mass media is
not against our language policy. This is reflected in the word-coining
policy that stipulates that if there are no appropriate terms for borrowed
words in Bahasa Indonesia, the terms can be taken from a foreign language.
Sociolinguistically, the persistent use of foreign words in advertising,
commercials and product packaging is motivated by the prestige of these
words. People deliberately use the words to accentuate their role as a
modern member of the educated elite and to mark the group in their speech.

Linguistically, foreign words, especially English one, are inevitably used
because of the following reasons: There is a wider "lexical gap" in
Indonesian, the nuances of English words are so distinctive that their
Indonesian equivalents cannot precisely capture the original meaning, and
there is an insufficiency in the Indonesian semantic field.

Both sociolinguistic and linguistic perspectives should become the prime
consideration in endorsing the bill. Language planning should not be the
sole prerogative of the central authorities (language experts or language
specialists). Good language planning ought to be aware of the social
implications of language. The extent to which one language is preferred or
favored will definitely depend on the community's attitude or perception
of the language used. The development of a sentimental attitude toward
foreign words can exacerbate the planning process since commercials and
the print and electronic media are filled with foreign words.

As a final remark, language planning should not take place in a vacuum,
suggesting that the sociocultural dimensions within the fuller social
context should be taken into consideration. And since language planning is
closely related to the improvement of communication, it must not be
isolated from the wider social concern for the improvement of the entire
communications system.

The writer is a lecturer at Atma Jaya University in Jakarta. He can be
reached at setiono.sugiharto at atmajaya.ac.id.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/misc/PrinterFriendly.asp