Language Shift of Banjarese in Sungai Manik, Perak

1.0 INTRODUCTION

There are many causes of language shift in a community. According to Ignace (1998), some of the causes are the shrinking of a minority group (perhaps due to migration and intermarriage), education and social mobility, and lack of planning of the particular language.

In Malaysia, under Malay ethnic group, one of the sub-ethnic groups is Banjar. There are approximately 221,000 of Banjar population in Malaysia (Joshua Project, 2000). They are a minority group in Malaysia and they scatter all over the peninsula from Penang to Tawau, Sabah (Mohd Salleh, 2003).

The Banjar is an interesting group to study because they belong to two different communities. First, they belong to the minority Banjar community, by their common Banjarese and land of origin. Second, they belong to the Malay community, under the umbrella of Malay ethnic group, the native of South-east Asia. In Malaysia, because the Banjar are scattered and living within the majority groups (mainly the Malays), they have assimilated into the mainstream community. In come cases, it is total assimilation where they do not speak Banjarese anymore and lead their life as the Malay (Muhammad Salleh, 1998).

2.0 AIM OF THE RESEARCH

The aim of the research is to observe and analyse if the language shift or language maintenance phenomenon takes place in the bilingual Banjar community in Sungai Manik, Perak Darul Ridzuan. If such is taking place, the research will also try to find reasons to explain the phenomenon.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Being a small scale research, this study focuses only on a bilingual Banjar family in Sungai Manik. The exact time of the migration of first generation of the family to Malaya cannot be verified. However, the oldest member of the family (68 years old; will be referred to as OG1 henceforth) is the forth generation of their descendants. OG1 is the only person in the generation who is still staying in Sungai Manik. Her husband has passed away in 1986. They had five children together; three of their children are working and residing in other parts of Malaysia, one (the oldest child; will be referred to as SG1 henceforth) who is married to a Javanese is residing not far from the house, and another (the third child; will be referred to as SG3 henceforth) is living in the family house with OG1.

SG1 and her husband have three children; the oldest (17 years old; will be referred to as TG1 henceforth) and the third (five years old; will be referred to as TG3 henceforth) are living with them, and the second (14 years old) are studying at a religious school in Chemor, Perak Darul Ridzuan. SG1 and her two children frequent OG1’s residence almost every day, especially during the day for a chat with OG1 and SG3. TG3 is particularly fond of OG1 and SG3 and sometimes visits the residence on his own and stays over night.

According to Denzin (1978, cited in Patton, 1990), in collecting data in a research, no single method is adequate to any problem “because each method reveals different aspects of empirical reality, multiple methods of observations must be employed.” Thus, the researcher decided to use two methods to gather data. The methods are observations and interviews. In order to collect data for the research, the researcher went to the respondents’ residence (OG1 and SG3) to observe and interview all the respondents. It was possible to observe all the respondents in one setting because they life very with near one another. However, the respondents did not allow their conversations or the interviews to be recorded because they were not comfortable with it. Therefore, the researcher stayed at OG1’s residence for three days to observe and take down notes of their conversations. The researcher had made it clear beforehand the purpose of the study and the reasons why observation and interview were carried out.

4.0 FINDINGS OF RESEARCH

Sungai Manik, Perak Darul Ridzuan covers quite a large area, with population estimated to be about 3500 people (SMKSA School Data, 2003). The entire population is mainly made up of Malays, with very few Chinese in the area who are shop owners and run their business there. Sub-ethnic groups of Malay in the area include the Banjar, Javanese, Mendailing and Siamese. The population is mainly farmers, working in paddy plantation and palm oil estate.

From the interviews with the respondents, the researcher found that only OG1, SG1 and SG3 understand Banjarese and Malay completely. TG1 and TG3 have very limited command of the language and do not use it when conversing with other respondents.

OG1 is a Banjar who was married to another Banjar from the community. OG1 uses Banjarese with all her children, but being in a Malay community, she and her children also learned Malay. She has had a limited education, and has not stayed anywhere outside Sungai Manik. However, she occasionally visits her sister who is in Alor Star and her children who are in other parts of Malaysia. OG1 does mix around in the neighbourhood and goes to Quranic and religious classes held for the veterans by the religious teachers in the community. These classes are held in Malay, because it is a shared language amongst the different sub-ethnic groups.

In the duration of the observation, it was observed that OG1 used Banjarese to speak with her children, SG1 and SG3, and they responded in Banjarese. SG1 and SG3 were also observed to have used Banjarese and Malay when they communicate with each other. However, OG1, SG1 and SG3 used Malay when they were speaking to TG1 and TG3, and they responded in Malay. Sometimes OG1 would mix her sentences with Banjarese words (but SG1 and SG3 do not at all) and the children understood her nonetheless. However, OG1 did not use a full Banjarese sentence or that many Banjarese words with the children because she is aware that they do not know much Banjarese. Here, we can see that OG1 was using a communicative strategy called codeswitching.

The term codeswitching in this research is to mean the use of two languages, in this case, Malay and Banjarese. According to David (2003), codeswitching can be viewed as a communicative strategy use in the process of language shift. It is an achievement strategy to get meaning across to the listener, perhaps due to differences in proficiency between members of the same community. This is perhaps true in the case of OG1 and her grandchildren. However, in the case of the sisters (SG1 and SG3), they said they codeswitch because they are “too lazy” to think for words when they talk. When they talk, they think of what they want to say and then say it with whatever words that come to their minds, whether they are in Malay or Banjarese.

The following are some examples of codeswitches in the data. Malay is in italics and Banjarese are underlined. In Example A, in the conversation between the sisters, SG3 asked her sister (SG1) to clean up the dining table. After a while, she (SG3) asked her again if she had cleaned it.

Example A:

SG3	Along, dah pulit meja tu? Kadak bida pun, aku tengok. (Along, have you cleaned the table? It doesn’t look any different to me.)
SG1	Sudah la.

OG1 uses the codeswitching strategy is when talking to her grandchildren because they are not proficient in Banjarese. In Example B, all the respondents were having lunch at OG1’s residence. Being very young, TG3’s table manners still need guidance. He took some food in the dish plate with his hands and OG1 scolded him for that.

Example B:

TG3	Tok, Muiz nak ni. (Tok, I want some of this.)
OG1	Eh! Jangan jumput dengan tangan! Guna sudu ni. Tangan kamu tu rigat. (Do not pick it with your hand. Use the spoon. Your hand is dirty.

5.0 REASONS FOR LANGUAGE SHIFT

5.1 Intermarriage 

There are several possible reasons for language shift in the family and also in the community. One of the most important reasons is intermarriage. According to David and Nambiar (2003), intermarriage can be a negative influence in the retention of the mother tongue of the parents. In the family, the children, TG1 and TG3, use only Malay to communicate with OG1, SG1 and SG3. Although sometimes OG1 would use several Banjarese words when she talks to them, they always respond in full Malay sentences. This could be because Malay is their mother tongue, the language being spoken at home by their parents. Here, Malay is used in SG2’s family because it is a shared language with the father who is a Javanese. He does not speak Banjarese, and nor does she speak Javanese. Thus, Malay is chosen for communication.

5.2 Malay as Language of Opportunity

Another possible cause for language shift is opportunities which come with Malay. Malay is seen as a language of opportunity in Malaysia because it is the national language, while Banjarese, according to the respondents, is a “dead-end” language. Ridler and Pons-Ridler (1984) suggested that the choice of language reflects the working of the market. People choose a language that will benefit them in a long run. In addition to that, Schiffman (1998) stated that language shift in the minority group is inevitable when the language of the minority is seen as a language which does not help the speakers to improve their socio-economy and social mobility. Thus, the minority group will shift to the dominant language.

5.3 Migration

Other than that, migration is also another reason why language shift is taking place in the community. Grimes (2001) noted that sociolinguists agree that migration, either voluntary or forced, is a cause of language shift. When the members of a community migrate, the remaining community shrinks in size and thus, they are less likely to be able to maintain their language. As we can see in the family, three of OG1’s children are working and residing outside Sungai Manik. The same is happening to other families as well. This could be due to more employment opportunities with better salary in urban areas than in Sungai Manik. With education and wanting to improve their standard of living, some of the Banjar here (as well as other sub-ethnic groups) have migrated mainly to Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and as far as Johor Bahru to look for employment.

5.4 Little Difference between Lifestyle, Custom and Culture

Another possible cause of language shift in the family and community is because there is very little difference in terms of lifestyle, custom and culture between the Banjar and Malay. The Banjar feel that they belong in their community and they feel almost as comfortable as in a Malay community. The respondents informed the researcher that they do not feel and have not been treated like an outsider when they are in a Malay group of friends. Although Banjarese is still their “intimate language”, the use of Malay does not make them feel “less” Banjar. Therefore, we can see that because the respondents are comfortable using Malay, do not see the need to maintain and use Banjarese, and do not feel their culture and custom are threatened by using Malay. As a result they tend to use more Malay in their family and community.

5.5 The National Education policy

The National Education policy could also be a reason for language shift in the Banjar community. According to Grimes (2001), the desire to build a nation by a people has contributed to language shift in several countries, although it does not cause universal shift of the language. This is because the minor sub-ethnic languages are not given attention at all in education policies drawn up by the government. In the case of the Banjar, they are educated in government schools with Malay being the medium of instruction. Thus, they are more familiar with Malay because it is the language they use outside their home. Banjarese is used only at home with their parent and siblings.

5.6 Modernization

In the area of Sungai Manik, modernization could also be a reason for language shift. Grimes (2001) noted that modernization, among other things, is a factor which accompanies language shift. In Sungai Manik, paddy plantation is being modernized and systematized by the state government to improve the production and quality of rice in the area. Therefore, some officers are posted there to train the locals on how to manage their rice plots, how to use the machines, the management of irrigation and so on. As modernization takes place, the people in the area also work together to ensure everyone benefits from the modernization and changes. Thus, they communicate using Malay as the lingua franca in the area. The frequent use of the language makes it more dominant than other sub-ethnic languages.

6.0 CONCLUSION

From the small family being studied, we can see that the third generation especially, has shifted from Banjarese to Malay. Although the second generation is fluent in the language and uses it at home with the first generation and their siblings, the third generation seems to have very limited command in the language.

REFERENCES

Alfani Daud. (2000). Islam dalam Masyarakat Banjar. Fakultas Ushuluddin IAIN Antasari.

Banjar Association of Malaysia (1998). Sejarah Orang Banjar di Malaysia. <http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Palace/5830/Pbanjar.htm >

David, M.K. (2003). Communicative Strategies in Sindhi Homes in Malaysia. In Watt, R.J. (Ed.). Multilingua: Journal of Cross-cultural And Interlanguage Communication: 22. pp.65-78

David, M.K. and Nambiar, M. (2003). Exogamous Marriages and out-migration: Language shift of Catholic Malayalees in Malaysia. In Watt, R.J. (Ed.). Multilingua: Journal of Cross-cultural And Interlanguage Communication: 22. pp. 141-150.

Grimes, B.F. (2001). Global language viability. In Osamu Sakiyama (ed.), Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim: Lectures on endangered languages 2. From Kyoto conference 2000, 45-68. ELPR Publication Series C002. ELPR.: Osaka, Japan < http://www.sil.org/sociolx/ndg-lg-grimes_topics.html&gt;

Ignace, M.B. (1998). A Handbook for Aboriginal Language Program Planning in British Columbia. First Nations Education Steering Committee: British Columbia <http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/fnesc/inex-e.html&gt;

Khairul Azmi. (1998). Imigrasi Orang Banjar. <http://utamadotmy.com/kb/imigrasi/imig1.html&gt;

Mohd Salleh Sohot. (2003). Fakta Sejarah Orang Banjar. <http://members.tripod.com/~SMLH/Banjar/fakta.html&gt;

Muhammad Salleh. (1998). Orang Banjar di Malaysia. <http://utamadotmy.com/kb/imigrasi/imig2.html&gt;

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2^nd. Ed.).London: SAGE Publications

Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Sultan Abdullah (2003). Data Latarbelakang Masyarakat Setempat. Chenderong Balai.

Schiffman, H. (1998). Language Shift. <http://ccats.sas.upenn.edu/~harolds/messeas/maltamil/node2.html&gt;

Schutt, R.K. (1996). Investigating the Social World: The process and practice of research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press

Ridler, N.B. and Pons-Ridler, S. (1984) .Language Economics: A Case Study of French. In Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 5,1 (1984): 57-63.

Language Planning: General Overview

1. INTRODUCTION

Noss (1994) defines language planning as a process whereby authority formulates and coordinates:

1.1  policies on the use and promotion of specific language varieties in particular roles within its jurisdiction,

1.2  policies on the identification and/or codification of the language varieties concerned, and subsequently implements these policies, evaluates the implementation, and if necessary, evaluates the policies later.

Ignace (1998) defines language planning as the development of goals, objectives and strategies to change the way a language is used in a community. It involves some intervention or “social engineering” of language use. The intervention and social engineering of the language use could include policies, as stated by Noss (1998), an authority or government carries out to achieve certain goals. As Rubin and Jernudd (1971, cited in Coronel-Molina, 1999) summarizes it,

“Language planning is a body of ideas, laws and regulations (language policy), change rules, beliefs, and practices intended to achieve a planned change (or to stop change from happening) in the language use in one or more communities. To put it differently, language planning involves deliberate, although not always overt, future oriented change in systems of language code and/or speaking in a societal context.”

Language planning is important because it serves several purposes. Some of the aims of language planning are to achieve national unity and harmony, as a nation building tool, to strengthen communicative integration, either domestically or internationally, to revitalize a language, to modernize and standardize a language, to reverse language shift, and thus prevent language death (Asmah, 1994; Noss, 1994; Coronel-Molina, 1999; Kavanagh, 1999; and Ignace, 1998).

2.  WHAT IS PLANNED?

According to Coronel-Molina (1999), language planning involves three components, which are status planning, corpus planning and acquisition planning.

2.1  Status Planning

Basically, status planning refers to the efforts to allocate the functions of the particular language within the speech community. Usually, this involves the functional domains of the language. Stewart (1968, cited in Coronel-Molina, 1999), developed a list of language functions, which includes:

2.1.1 Official – a legally appropriate language for political and cultural representation of a country. This gives the language a “statutory” official status. For example, the status of Malay as an official language in Malaysia.

2.1.2 Provincial – a language used as the official language of a province or region, but not the nation. For example, the Canadian French in Quebec, Canada.

2.1.3 International – a language used as a medium of communication internationally, such as the current status of English.

2.1.4 Group – a language used as a medium of communication among members of a single cultural or ethnic group, such as settled group of foreign immigrants. For example, Hebrew as a marker for Jews.

2.1.5 Religious – the use of a language in connection with the ritual of a particular religion, such as Latin for Roman Catholics before Vatican II, Hebrew for Judaism, and Arabic for Islam.

2.1.6 Wider communication – a language used as a medium of communication across language boundaries within a nation. This excludes languages which already serve an official or provincial function.

2.1.7 Educational – a language used as the medium of primary or secondary school. Coronel-Molina (1999) noted that this function does not include post-secondary education. The choice of a language of education also very often has strong political roots.

2.1.8 School subject – a language that is taught as a school subject at the secondary or higher education levels. This is not necessarily the medium of instruction. An example of a language being taught as a school subject is Sanskrit, which is being taught at tertiary level in India.

2.1.9 Literary – a language used primarily for literary or scholarly purposes. (Coronel-Molina, 1999)

2.2  Corpus Planning

Corpus planning is related to the language itself. Cooper (1989, cited in Coronel-Molina, 1999), said that it is “the creation of new forms, the modification of old ones, or the selection from alternative forms in a spoken or written code”. Corpus planning involves several steps:

2.2.1 Graphization – for previously unwritten language, or a language without a systematic writing system. There are several aspects to consider in graphization, that are:

2.2.1.1 orthographic conventions,

2.2.1.2 whether to represent allophones with separate symbols,

2.2.1.3 alphabets versus syllabaries,

2.2.1.4 political and/or social issues which might affect acceptance of the alphabets/syllabaries,

2.2.1.4 how easy the new alphabets/syllabaries are to learn, write, read and transfer between languages.

2.2.2 Standardization of the language – it is a process where a variety of a language become widely accepted by the speech community as “the best form of the language – rated above regional and social dialects,” (Ferguson 1989, cited in Coronel-Molina, 1999). Standardization of a language includes codification, language rules and rules on how to use the language. Coronel-Molina (1999) added that “grammars, dictionaries etc. serve to codify language and “fix” or standardize the lexicon in a more or less permanent form.”

2.2.3 Modernization or elaboration of the language – which refers to the constant and permanent cultivation and development of the language. It is the “process whereby a language becomes an appropriate medium of communication for modern topics and forms of discourse (Cooper 1989, cited in Coronel-Molina, 1999). The process mainly includes the development of the language at lexical level, such as creating and developing new terms/words for new items or new concepts.

2.2.4 Renovation, which is similar to modernization, is an effort to change a developed code to make it efficient, aesthetic or to serve political ideology. For example, the purification of the French language in an attempt to eliminate foreign loan-words, and the feminist campaign for find gender-neutral terms, such as “chairperson” as oppose to “chairman” (Ignace, 1998 and Coronel-Molina, 1999).

2.3 Acquisition planning

Acquisition planning involves efforts to influence users and the number of users of the language, and the distribution of language and literacy by creating or improving opportunities or incentives to learn them. Coronel-Molina (1999) says that there are several goals of acquisition planning of a language, which are:

2.3.1 the acquisition of the language as a second or foreign language,

2.3.2 the reacquisition of the language by populations for whom it was either a vernacular, such as revitalizing Maori in New Zealand, or a language of specialized function, such as written Chinese in Taiwan,

2.3.3 language maintenance, such as attempts to prevent language death of Irish Gaelic in the Gaeltacht.

In order to reach these goals, Coronel-Molina (1999) stated that three types of methods are designed, that are methods designed to create or improve the opportunity to learn the language, to create or improve the incentive to learn the language, and to create or improve both the opportunity and incentive to learn the language.

3.  SUCCESSFUL LANGUAGE PLANNING

3.1  Hebrew in Israel

According to Ignace (1998), Hebrew, the language of the Jews, is often named as a language that has been successfully revived. Being suppressed in their religion and culture, Jews scattered throughout Europe and America during the World War I and World War II. Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the speaking of Hebrew had been kept alive, often in secret, religious ceremonies and was confined to religious texts. The Jews who moved to Israel after the establishment of the State of Israel were from many different language backgrounds (Russian, English, French, German, etc.), and needed a common language to communicate in. The reviving Hebrew was symbolic as well as practical communicative functions. It was selected for its symbolic function of common religion and nationhood. It was enforced as the national language in all public institutions in Israel after 1948.

By 1961, Hebrew was spoken as the primary or only language of 75 % of the population of Israel. Some strategies utilized for its revival included:

3.1.1 Berlitz type teaching in schools, and in evening and weekend classes,

3.1.2 the establishment of Hebrew speaking societies, where people gathered to practice speaking the language,

3.1.3 the coining of new words and terms to modernize the language,

3.1.4 developing official terminology through the Hebrew Academy (Ignace 1998).

3.2  Maori in New Zealand

Maori has been called a “language that has risen from its deathbed” (AFN 1990, in Ignace, 1998). The Maori Language Bill of 1987 declared Maori an official language of New Zealand. It also established the Maori Language Commission, which issue certificates of competency to interpreters and translators. Since 1960 and continues till 1980s, there was increased pressure on the New Zealand government to establish immersion and bilingual schools. Schools, home and social institutions work hand-in-hand in order to revive Maori.

Maori revival is successful due to the creation of a popular movement in the context of towards cultural and political autonomy, and flexible boundaries of ethnicity whereby there is no predetermined “Indian status”. Thus, anyone who professes to Maori identity and cultural roots can be incorporated into the community. As a result, Maori has been revived and now spoken widely in New Zealand (Ignace, 1998).

3.3  Mohawk in Kahnawake

During the 1970s, the Mohawk people of Kahnawake in Quebec were experiencing language shift, which had been replaced by French and English. According to Ignace (1998), in 1978, Quebec enacted Bill 101, the French language charter, which reduced education and services in languages other than French. 

Following that, the Kahnawake Mohawk established the Kanien’kehaka Raotitiohkwa Cultural Center to preserve their language and cultural heritage. In addition, in 1980 they established a Mohawk immersion program modelled on French immersion programs in Quebec, in order to reintroduce the use of the language to younger generation in the community. It was the first Aboriginal language immersion programme in Canada, and it has become a model for other Aboriginal communities in North America.

According to Hoover (1992, cited in Ignace, 1998), recent research has shown that the immersion programme has had a positive effect on the knowledge and use of Mohawk in the community. The Mohawk immersion program for elementary school children has proven to be successful because there is a rise in the ability to speak Mohawk, especially in the younger generation, an increase in the mixing of Mohawk with English and an increase in the private speaking of Mohawk among the new generation.

3.4  Malay in Malaysia

In Malaysia, according to Asiah Abu Samah (1994), Malay was given the status of national language in The Razak Report in 1956, and backed by The Rahman Talib Report in 1960. Both reports became the basis of the Education Act 1961, which states that the national language (Malay) is the main medium of instruction, phasing out English in the education system. By the end of 1980, the conversion from English to Malay-medium in secondary schools was completed.

Malay is given the status as the national language for several reasons. Other than a language to unite all the ethnic groups in Malaysia and to strengthen communicative integration, one of the reasons is to give Malaysia a national identity. In the aim to make Malay an esteem national language, Language Institute was set up in 1957 to improve the quality of teaching of Malay. Another agency, the Language and Literary Agency was established for the purpose of planning, development and publishing in Malay. Asiah Abu Samah (1994) stated that we can see language planning in Malaysia as successful due to the fact that the development of Malay has been impressive, linguistically, pedagogically and stylistically. All academic disciplines at tertiary level are now conducted in Malay. It has become the language of communication at all levels, both in formal or informal settings.

4.  CONCLUSION

The government or authority is one of the most important key players in any language planning programmes. This is because all the policies and decisions which determine the future of the language are in their hands. However, family, the community and social institutions also play a vital role in promoting the use of the language in their circle. In short, everyone is the community must work hand-in-hand to ensure the success of the revival and/or revitalization of the language.

Many countries and provinces have carried out language planning for various reasons, politically or socially driven. Careful language planning which take into account various variables in the society and the users of the language is many a times proven to be successful and has achieved their goals. The revival of Hebrew, Maori and Mohawk, and revitalization of Malay are some examples of successful language planning in the world.

REFERENCE

Asiah Abu Samah. (1994). Language Education Policy Planning in Malaysia: Concern for unity, reality and rationality. In Language Planning in Southeast Asia. Abdullah Hassan (Ed.) Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka: Kuala Lumpur

Asmah Omar. (1994). Nationism and Exoglossia: The case of English in Malaysia. In Language Planning in Southeast Asia. Abdullah Hassan (Ed.) Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka: Kuala Lumpur

Coronel-Molina, S.M. (1999). Language and Literacy Planning. In Summer Literacy Training Program 1999. International Literacy Institute. <http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~scoronel/SLTP-1999-presenta-index.html&gt; Viewed: 19^th Aug. 2003

Doshi, A. (2003). Language Planning. In Analysis of Lexical Transfer between Languages. University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

Ignace, M.B. (1998). A Handbook for Aboriginal Language Program Planning in British Columbia. First Nations Education Steering Committee: British Columbia <http://www.schoolnet.ca/aboriginal/fnesc/inex-e.html&gt; Viewed: 19^th Aug. 2003

Kavanagh, B. (1999). The Aboriginal Language Program Planning Workbook. First Nations Education Steering Committee: British Columbia <http://www.fnesc.bc.ca/publications/pdf/language%workbook2.pdf&gt; Viewed: 19^th Aug. 2003

Noss, R.B. The Unique Context of Language Planning in Southest Asia. In Language Planning in Southeast Asia. Abdullah Hassan (Ed.) Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka: Kuala Lumpur

.