I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as daughter for my mom and dad
I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as sister for my brothers and sisters
I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as aunt for my nephew and niece
I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as bestfriend for my bestfriend
I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as friend for my friends
I'm sorry, if I couldn't be good as Aulia for my family, for everyone
Here is the mind mapping of sociolinguistic in New Zealand.
LINGUISTIC POLITENESS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES
Many implicit
sociolinguistic biases remain about what people think when t
hey ask or say a
specific thing. We expect something more complicated than Dr Kennedy when we
ask someone to introduce an honorable guest at an important formal dinner. When
we expect anyone to dine, we suppose that they know the requirements of decent
attire, arrival times and subjects that are appropriate to address at night.
For example, whether visitors are close friends, thorough talk of the recent
activity of a cat or of the insides of your new car is not normally acceptable and
thus the speaker is free to ask to shut down if proper listening is needed.
Example
Hostess
: Have another helping.
Guest
:
No thanks I am thoroughly fed up.
There are
sociolinguistic toleration and exclusion criteria that vary across cultures. Refusal
to properly welcome people to Western society can be a daunting job. How do you
reject somebody you don't want a ride home? How do you deny someone who is your
social superior asking you to a meal? A pretext is compulsory and must be
reasonable and fairly precise. There are very common vague formulas in certain
cultures like I'm busy that night I am terrified of being completely
appropriate. However, a more concrete justification to reject is required in
many Western cultures. Where the social component predominates, the anonymity
of people is diminished and ambiguous behaviors are assumed to be avoidable. To
be respectful in these contexts implies to understand the cultural
expressiveness of a variety of speech roles.
It is considered
impolite to accept food when it is initially served in certain areas of India
and Taiwan, as well as in parts of the Arabic speaking world. It is only
necessary for the third offer to accept and, therefore, only the offeror finds
a third rejection to be absolute. There are also stories about over-represented
travelers in the West who have not established this cultural standard. In the
other hand, travelers from abroad who work according to these criteria would
presumably consider the English hosts to be ungenerous because second aid is
only given once. Sociolinguistic principles once again express cultural ideals.
Food placing is considered to be a positively friendly behavior, particularly
in cultures where social classes have a large economic disparity. Fatness, on
the other hand, is not considered a symbol of prosperity in western culture. In
reality thinness is very much appreciated and sociolingual dinner expectations
prefer to take into account the prospect of visitors eat. It may be humiliating
to be asked to constantly decline food deals.
Greetings
Example
(a)
How are you?
(b) Where are you going?
(c) Have you eaten?
(d) Where do you come from?
(e) Are you married?
(f) How much do you earn?
(g) What do you weigh?
Any
of these questions is appropriate as part of a daily greeting ritual in various
cultures. It is formulas and ritualism is the intended response. Like a
thorough blow-by-blow summary of cold weather in answer to 'How are you?,' the
questioners from South East Asia should not expect a precise minute account of
your planned trip and destination. The answer is incorrect and inappropriate.
Just like the answer to the first question is just "fine" so the
answer to the second question is "along the way" or "just a
short distance". Greetings formulas are universally used for the affective
role of contacts and partnerships without attacks, but they obviously have a
culture-specific substance.
There
are distinctly distinctive social expectations in a number of fields and the
best ways of communicating in diverse cultures. In different cultures speech
roles are represented differently. To be courteous means to consider the basic
principles that control how social aspects are communicated, such as status,
unity and formality. A sociolinguistic definition is meant to describe the
weight different in different cultures of these variables.
Here our discussion about National Languages and Language Planning
From Damba Reja, Aulia Arifin, Genda Opriorika, Annisa Lestiani and Abdushomad Al Wahid.
NATIONAL LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE PLANNING
Paraguay
is the only Latin American nation with a distinctive national language.
Paraguay provides a clear case of stable broad diglossia, with Spanish, the H
Language used in formal contexts, for administration, a great deal of education
and legal business and Guarani the L language of solidarity, the language of
love, humor and poetry. An interesting example in Paraguay, Paraguayans are
generally happy to recognise Spanish as a useful language for official
business. But though Spanish and Guarani both have official status, it is
Guarani which most people regard as their distinctive culture and traditions. Many
Paraguayans consider that Guarani is an important symbol of Paraguayan
identity. People feel that you cannot be a true Paraguayan unless you can speak
the language. Some people say that there are things they can say in Guarani
which are more difficult to express in Spanish. While people find that Spanish
a useful language for formal and business interactions, most are proud of
Guarani and express strong loyalty towards it.
NATIONAL AND OFFICIAL
LANGUAGES
The government of Paraguay in 1960 distinguished the
language status of Spanish and Gurani. Spanish is the "official"
language while Gurani is the "national" language. In
sociolinguistics, the distinction between national and official languages is
made based on the ideological-instrumental dimension. A function of Spanish,
the official language is utilitarian rather than symbolic, this language is
used for government. Meanwhile, the function of the Paraguay language, the
national language, is to identify the nation and unite its people, which means
the language of the political, social and cultural unit which has a symbol as
national unity. Besides, governments do not always support the differences sociolinguistics
make. However, in 1992 the situation changed, with Guarani becoming the
official language. So Paraguay has 2 official languages and 1 national
language. Similar cases were found in multilingual Tanzania, which has one
national language, Swahili, and two official languages, Swahili and English.
Many countries do not differentiate between official and national languages.
Such states serve political and social goals on the one hand. In multilingual
countries, governments declare a language as the national language, often for
political purposes. When the national language has problems, identification of
the official language is required. As in multilingual India, attempts to give
the national language to the singular status of Hindi were unsuccessful. Thus,
fourteen regional languages of India are recognized as official languages along
with English and Hindi for the country as a whole.
PLANNING FOR A
NATIONAL OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Form,
functions and attitudes
This involves
issues relating to the form of the variety, the functions it serves, and the
attitudes that people hold towards it.
There are generally
four interrelated steps:
1. Selection: choosing the variety or code to be developed.
2. Codification: standardising its structural or linguistic features.
This kind of “linguistic processing” is known as corpus planning.
3. Ellaboration: extending its functions for use in new domains. This
involves developing the necessary linguistic resources for handling new
concepts and contexts.
4. Securing its
acceptance. The status of the new variety
is important, and so people’s attitudes to the variety being developed must be
considered. Steps may be needed to enhance its prestige, for instance, and
encourage people to develop pride in the language, or loyalty towards it. This
is known as status planning or prestige
planning.
The relationship between the steps is summarised in table:
|
|
Form |
Function and Attitudes |
|
Social Linguistic |
Selection Codification |
Acceptance Elaboration |
Selection and acceptance are steps which involve social
and political factors. Codification and elaborating the code to handle a wider
range of functions are,by contrast, essentially linguistic process.
Tanzania
·
Selecting a code
It’s hard to choose the national
language for Tanzania when gained independence in 1961 because the government
faced the dilemma to decide it. There are many changes of the language,
choosing one language from over a hundred languages. Choosing English, Swahili,
Bantu language. Swahili is many found in the lingua franca and used in
education also administration. But Bantu language is the language which was
known as African language.
·
Codifying and
elaborating Swahili
This was begun by the British
administration before independence. It was being used in primary education and
for administration. Following Tanzanian independence in 1961, Swahili was used
in more and more contexts for education, administration, politics, and law. In
1984, however, the government decided to extend Swahili-medium education to
secondary tertiary education. English has been retained for these levels.
·
Attitudes to
Swahili
It’s guaranteed it prestige and
positive attitudes. The story of the acceptance of Swahili as the national
language of Tanzania is therefore an interesting one. From many problematic so
that Swahili became the national language of Tanzania. In this section, the
steps involved in developing a particular code or variety for use as a national
language have been discussed in relation to a large multilingual country,
Tanzania, where the competing varieties are distinct languages. And the steps
are relevant with the next section in relation to Norway.
DEVELOPING A
STANDARD VARIETY IN NORWAY
Selecting a
code
Essentially the
Norwegian government had the choice of developing a national language from
standard Danish or from local Norwegian dialects.. So although choosing Danish
would have reduced the linguistic problems facing the planners, it presented
different kinds of problems. On the other hand, choosing a variety from among
the regional Norwegian dialects raised problems relating to the form and new
functions required of a standard language. Any dialect selected would need
codifying and would require extensive functional elaboration. And the problem
of which
dialect to select caused obvious headaches in relation to people’s
attitudes. Two different approaches were taken to developing a standard written
variety of Norwegian.
Codification
and elaboration
This composite variety was essentially the brainchild of
Ivar Aasen, a schoolteacher who had studied Norwegian dialects. As a result
this constructed variety turned out to be one of the best described languages
around at the time. Aasen identifi ed common grammatical patterns in different
dialects, and he chose vocabulary from a range of different regions. Where
there was a choice of word forms he selected those he considered least
‘corrupted’ or ‘contaminated’ by Danish. Rural dialect resources also solved the
problem of functional elaboration, or extending the use of Norwegian into
domains where Danish had previously been the only appropriate code.
From a linguistic
point of view, they are very similar indeed pronouncements are regularly made
by the Norwegian Language Council about which spellings of particular words are
officially sanctioned. Official documents are printed in both varieties, and
schoolchildren are taught to read and write both, though local councils decide
which variety is to be used as the main vehicle of instruction in the local
schools.
Acceptance
Aasen succeeded in this to the
extent that in 1885 Landsmål was voted offi cial equality with Danish, in 1929
it was relabelled Nynorsk, and at its peak in 1944 it was the chief language of
instruction for 34.1 per cent of all schoolchildren. Since then, Nynorsk has
had mixed fortunes, and by 2008 it was the language of instruction for only
13.4 per cent of pupils in primary school.
In Norway, as in many more recently developing nations, things have not
been so simple. The government has considered it necessary to make deliberate
choices, to accelerate the process of language standardisation and to legislate
on the status of particular varieties. It is clear that language planning is a
fascinating mixture of political and social considerations, as well as
linguistic ones Top-down’ signs are offi cial signs, designed by public
authorities, while ‘bottom-up’ signs are non-offi cial signs, usually produced
by individuals or groups.
THE
LINGUIST’S ROLE IN LANGUAGE PLANNING
Language schools have existed for hundreds of years,
but there are indeed individuals who often It has a huge impact on language
planning, especially the standardization or compilation of specific species.
Samuel Johnson’s 40,000-word dictionary was a
landmark in the codification of English, though, as example 7 demonstrates, he
had few illusions about the lexicographer’s role. Ivar Aasen in Norway created
a composite variety of Norwegian (Landsmål/Nynorsk) from a range of dialects.
In Israel, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda was the most influential proponent of the
vernacularisation of Hebrew. Francis Mihalic wrote the first authoritative
grammar and dictionary of Tok Pisin in the 1950s. And in New Zealand Harry Orsman
completed the first dictionary of New Zealand English on historical principles
in 1997.
These days, the details of the language plan are
handled by the committee Committee or college. In addition, many language
planning activities focus on In countries trying to establish self-government,
there are differences in the promotion of national and official language
changes, including attention to minorities and endangered languages.
Compilation and vocabulary expansion are usually the most concerned issues of
the language school.
CONCLUSION
Language planning is defined most simply as
deliberate language change. This covers a wide variety of activities including
the introduction of new labels for fruit, the reform of spelling systems and
also includes the development of national languages and standard dialects.
Language planners generally focus on specifi c language problems. This chapter
has been concerned mainly with the language policies of countries and states
rather than the language behaviour of individuals. In the first of this book,
multilingualism highlights linguistic diversity and makes it easier to
perceive, In section II of this book, we will look in some detail at how
monolinguals draw on their linguistic resources to signal such non-linguistic
information, and how they use these resources to construct social identities
and social relationships.
