LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LEXIS IN CAKAP KARO.
LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LEXIS IN CAKAP KARO
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Postgraduate Program,
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
INGRID GIBRETTA KHAIRANI GINTING
Register Number: 8136111034
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Gibretta, I. NIM: 8136111034. Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap
Karo. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics. Study Program:
Postgraduate School. State University of Medan, 2015.
This qualitative research deals with a study on the lexical loss, which is
aimed at (1) investigating the level of agricultural lexical loss, (2) describing
the patterns of agricultural lexical loss, (3) explaining the reasons of
agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo. The empirical materials were
thoroughly and well-gathered from the document and interview. The highly
critical and systematic analysis with ‘Miles and Huberman Model’ reveals
that there were 249 (two hundreds forty nine) lexicons regarded as
agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo. This research has drawn the
following conclusions. Firstly, the level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap
Karo among hard plants, plants for food, herbs plant and kinds of flower
categories were occured in fourth level (not know and not use) which had
different percentages. The highest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap
Karo occurred in kinds of flower category (92.31%) and the lowest level
occurred in plants for food category (85.19%). Secondly, the agricultural
lexical loss was proportionally patterned into potential and total lexical loss.
There were 103 (one hundred and three) potential agricultural lexical loss
and 146 (one hundred forty six) total agricultural lexical loss. Thirdly, the
reasons of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo were linguistics, prestige
and technology factors. In educational setting, the various loss of
agricultural lexis in Cakap Karo implicitly implicate that language
standardization, i.e. selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance, is
not totally employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated
problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Cakap Karo to the
next generation.
ABSTRAK
Gibretta, I. NIM: 8136111034, Leksikal Agrikultural yang Hilang
dalam Cakap Karo, Tesis Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa
Inggris, Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2015.
Penelitian kualitatif ini berkenaan dengan kajian kehilangan leksikal yang
bertujuan untuk (1) menginvestigasi level dari leksikal agrikultural yang
hilang, (2) mendeskripsikan pola-pola leksikal agrikultural yang hilang, (3)
menjelaskan alasan-alasan dari leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dalam
Cakap Karo. Data-data empiris yang menyeluruh dan dikumpulkan dengan
baik diperoleh dari dokumen and wawancara. Analisis yang sangat kritis
dan sistematis dengan ‘Miles and Huberman Model’ mengungkapkan
bahwa ada 249 (dua ratus empat puluh sembilan) leksikon dianggap sebagai
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dalam Cakap Karo. Penelitian ini telah
menarik beberapa kesimpulan seperti berikut ini. Pertama, level dari leksikal
agrikultural yang hilang dalam Cakap Karo antara kategori tanaman keras,
tanaman untuk makanan, tanaman obat-obatan dan jenis-jenis bunga terjadi
di level keempat (tidah tahu dan tidak menggunakan) yang memiliki
persentasi yang berbeda. Level tertinggi dari leksikal agrikultural yang
hilang dalam Cakap Karo terjadi di kategori jenis-jenis bunga (92.31%) dan
level terendah terjadi di kategori tanaman untuk makanan (85.19%). Kedua,
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang berpola secara proporsional dalam
potensial dan total leksikal yang hilang. Ada 103 (seratus tiga) potensial
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dan 146 (seratus empat puluh enam) total
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang. Ketiga, alasan-alasan hilangnya leksikal
agrikultural dalam Cakap Karo adalah faktor linguistik, gengsi, dan
teknologi. Dalam bidang pendidikan, berbagai hilangnya leksikal
agrikultural dalam Cakap Karo secara implisit mengimplikasikan bahwa
standardisasi bahasa, seperti seleksi, kodifikasi, elaborasi, dan penerimaan,
tidak benar-benar bekerja, oleh karena itu membawa masalah rumit yang
sangat besar menghambat keberhasilan mengajar dan belajar Cakap Karo
untuk generasi berikutnya.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A great thank to Heavenly Father Jesus Christ for blessing and
protection that have been continously poured to the writer in the process of
completing her studies and this piece of academic masterpiece. The last of
the prophets and upon her messengers and her families, and whoever
follows below have given her invaluable help, support, suggestions
motivation, encouragements during her study at the English Applied
Linguistics Study Program,
Postgraduate School State University of
Medan.
In the process of completing this thesis, there are many people who
have assisted and suggested the materials to be impossible to name all at
some deserve the honor to be noted.
Firstly, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Professor.
Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., her first adviser for the guidance, assistant,
encouragement and valuable suggestions and critics from these great heroes
in education, in the process of writing this thesis.
Secondly, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr.
Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., her second adviser for his available time spent for
consultation, great supervision and full support in shaping this thesis.
The writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head,
English Applied Linguistics Program, Professor. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
M.Pd., and his secretary Dr. Sri Minda Murni, MS and Farid who have
assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process
of her study in the postgraduate program.
She would like to take special occasion to express her gratitude to
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd., and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., being her reviewers and examiners for the
valuable inputs to be include in this thesis. Furthermore, she would like to
express her high appreciation to all lectures of English Applied study
program UNIMED Medan, who have shared their knowledge and
experience her during study.
And thank you note addressed to her
colleagues in class A of English Applied Linguistics in take XXIII for the
cooperation and friendly being in the “same boat”.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like to
dedicate her love and sincerest gratitude to her beloved parents Tenang
Ginting and Rosmalinda Tarigan, her beloved sister Sagitha Devy Ginting
for her sincere and most reliable comfort and above all, their love and
support. May God consecrate to them. Amin.
Medan, August 2015
Ingrid Gibretta K Ginting
Register Number 8136111034
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study
.
1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ...................................................................................
9
1.3 The Objective of the Study ..................................................................................
9
1.4 The Scope of the Study ........................................................................................ 10
1.5 The Significances of the study ............................................................................ 10
CHAPTER II. RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW ...................... 11
2.1 Language Change ................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1 Definition of Language Change ................................................................... 11
2.1.2 The Causes of Language Change ................................................................... 13
2.1.2.1 Internal Factor .................................................................................... 13
2.1.2.2 External Factor ................................................................................... 16
2.2 Lexical Change .................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 The Occurrence of Lexical Change .................................................................. 20
2.2.2 The Types of Lexical Change ........................................................................... 25
2.2.2.1 The Loss of Lexical Item ................................................................... 30
2.2.2.2 Semantic Change................................................................................ 31
2.2.2.3 The Creations of New Lexical Item ................................................... 32
2.2.3 The Causes of Lexical Change ......................................................................... 39
2.2.3.1 The Causes of Lexical Loss ............................................................... 40
2.2.3.2 The Causes of Semantic Change ........................................................ 41
2.2.3.3 The Causes of Creation of Lexical Item ............................................ 44
2.3 Karonese and Karo Language .............................................................................. 44
2.3.1 Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ........................................................ 46
2.4 Relevant Studies................................................................................................... 48
2.5 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 52
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ........................................... 54
3.1 Research Design................................................................................................... 54
3.2 Data and Source of Data ...................................................................................... 54
3.3 The Instruments of Data Collection ..................................................................... 55
3.4 The Procedures of Data Collection ...................................................................... 56
3.5 The Technique of Data Analysis.......................................................................... 57
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study ............................................................................... 58
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 60
4.1 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 60
4.1.1 The Levels of Agricultural Lexical Loss in Cakap Karo ................................. 61
4.1.2 Patterns of Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ..................................... 65
4.1.2.1 Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ...................................... 65
4.1.2.1.1 Potential Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ......... 66
4.1.2.1.2 Total Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ............... 69
4.1.3 The Reasons of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ............................... 70
4.2 Research Findings ................................................................................................ 72
4.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 72
4.3.1 The Level of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ..................... 73
4.3.2 The Pattern of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ................... 74
4.3.3 The Reasons of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ................. 75
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................... 76
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 76
5.2 Implications.......................................................................................................... 77
5.2 Suggestions .......................................................................................................... 78
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX ............................................................................................ 84
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1. Words Considered Old-Fashioned in Modern Context ..................
Table 2.2. Distinctions between Derivation and Inflection .............................
Table 2.3. Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ..................................................
Table 4.1. Percentage of Hard Plant’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ...................
Table 4.2. Percentage of Plants for Food’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ...........
Table 4.3. Percentage of Herbs Plant’s Agricultural Lexical Loss .................
Table 4.4. Percentage of Kinds of Flower’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ..........
Table 4.5. The Levels of Agricultural Lexical Loss in Cakap Karo ...............
22
35
47
61
62
62
63
65
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1. Factors of Language Change ........................................................
Figure 2.2. Dynamic of Language Acquisition and Language Change ..........
Figure 2.3. Language Change Domains ..........................................................
Figure 2.4. External and Internal Borrowing in Creating
New Lexical Item ............................................................................................
13
15
26
32
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. List of Agricultural Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ...................... 84
Appendix 2. The Format of Questionnaire ...................................................... 92
Appendix 3. Agricultural’s Hard Plants Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ........... 98
Appendix 4. Agricultural’s Plants for Food Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo...... 102
Appendix 5. Agricultural’s Herbs Plant Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ........... 104
Appendix 6. Agricultural’s Flower Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ................... 105
Appendix 7. Percentage of Agricultural’s Hard Plants In Cakap Karo .......... 106
Appendix 8. Percentage of Agricultural’s Plants For Food In Cakap Karo ... 110
Appendix 9. Potential Loss of Agricultural Lexicons of Cakap Karo ............ 112
Appendix 10. Total Loss of Agricultural Lexicons of Cakap Karo ................ 116
Appendix 11. Interview ................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Language change may happen to any language where the influencing
language is considered more prestigious and valuable. This study looks at the
phenomena of ethnic language change among Karonese people in linguistic area
of phonology, lexicon and semantic. The culture of Karonese people in the
highlands of Karo, North Sumatera, which is located approximately 78 km from
Medan, the capital of North Sumatera province, cannot separated from the
language that is used every day in daily life called Cakap Karo or Karo language,
because basically language is part of culture. With a number of speakers are above
five hundred thousand people in 1991 and domiciled in the adjacent area around
the 4 largest area of Tanah Karo in city districts – Kabanjahe, Simpang Empat
sub-district, city tourism of Berastagi dan Tigapanah sub-district and 10 other
districts make Cakap Karo as ethnic languages are still quite often used.
Indonesia has a language which is known as Bahasa Indonesia. Besides,
Indonesia has many local languages such as Javanese, Sundanese, Bataknese,
Karonese, etc. The Karonese is local language which is used by the Karo people
to communicate among them. It has some varieties, one of them is dialect. Jufrizal
(1999:101) defines dialect as regional variety of language that may different from
other varieties of the language in features of it is vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation. In addition, Wardaugh (2007:40) explains that dialect sometime is
only if there is a strong tradition of writing in local variety. It means that dialect is
the language that is used by people who still have strict tradition strictly in a
regional.
Karo language as one of hundreds of Indonesian vernacular is an
Austronesia language spoken on Karo Land which is related to Simalungun
language, Alas language and Gayo language. Karonese people speak Karo
language, which is also known as Cakap Karo. Karo language is spoken in five
different dialects, namely dialects of Julu, Teruh Deleng, Singalur Lau, Jahe and
Liang Melas. Julu dialect is used in Kabanjahe sub-district, Simpang Empat, Tiga
Panah, Berastagi, and surrounding. Teruh Delung Dialect used in Kuta Buluh subdistrict and partially in Payung sub-district (Prinst, 2002). In his book, he added
that Singalur Lau dialect is used in Juhar, Tiga Binanga, Singgamanik and
Perbesi. Jahe dialect (Hilir) is used in Karo Jahe (Deliserdang-Medan) and
partially in Langkat (Hulu). Liang Melas dialect used in Lau Melas sub-district.
Those differences can be seen from the sound of word or from the intonation of
words. But most of Karonese people in North Sumatera use their own dialect
when they communicate with people from different dialect and they still
understand each other. Chaer (1995:81) says that variation is variation of language
occur because of social variation and regional variation. Variation of language
also occurs because of differences social status.
The Karo Language is used by Karonese people. But there are variations
of the language that are caused by regional and social variation. Differences of
social status, age, religion and culture also caused the language variation. Because
of those variations the result it makes language change. In changing of one
language, there are semantic changing, phonology, morphological, lexical, and
syntax changing. Language change can because of many factors like time, age,
regional, and social status. Thus, the dialect that is used by people in regional can
change, because of some factors like time, age, change of regional, social status
and the lost of native speakers.
Any language in the world tends to change which might be in the forms of
lexical, morphological, syntactical, semantic and pragmatic changes (Dhaki, 2011:
1). Specifically, lexical change is manifested in every single of lexical classes of a
language, such as noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction
and interjection. A case of lexical change in Karo language is the word abal-abal,
a tubes of bamboo used as a place to store salt for durability. It is regarded one of
lexical loss of Karo language because it is not practiced anymore. Another
empirical example is aron (clearing forests for agriculture and farms manually
using human hands, performed together as a wholesale activities of fellow
members of the community where everyone involved working as a form of mutual
aid) which is categorized as a verb becomes a noun which means “laborers who
do the grunt work for someone else”. This phenomenon, which is caused by the
metaphorical application, is called as semantic change due to its lexical class
movement from verb to noun. Empirically, the older speakers of Karo language
experience that the youngsters are reluctant to use their mother tongue so that they
sometimes mix between Karo Language and Indonesian Language. These
evidences serve as the beginning of language change itself. Having the previous
examples, it is feasible to assert that the lexical change contains types, patterns,
and reasons. Lexical change type is defined as the sort of change realized in the
lexicons, which might be loss of lexicon or change of meaning like the example
above.
The influence of modern things nowadays is regarded as factor for Karo
language existence and maintenance. The fashionable and innovative devices and
needs bridge the Karo language users’ attention to lexical modernization; a
process by which a language standardizing, enhancing, and expanding its domains
of activity (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997: 69). On the other hand, the popularity of
Karo Land as one of the most beautiful tourism areas governs the existence and
maintenance of Karo language. This is because the great possibility of codeswitching between Karo language and tourist’s language, which serve as a major
factor of a language change (Lindstrom, 2007: 232), take place.
There will be also a tendency to the change of Karo language when its
speakers are more educated. This has been proved by the fact the role of Karo
language use in educational setting is not the same at home. This is definitely
rooted from the empirical evidence that the medium of teaching and learning in
Karonese schools is Indonesian. Consequently, the students’ attitudes towards
Karo language eventually decreases which automatically makes Indonesian
dominantly used in their day life. This condition, which serves as determining
factor of lexical loss, makes the Karo lexical replaceable by Indonesian lexical
increasingly.
Religion is a particular system of faith and worship based on the belief of
language speakers serves as another influence of Karo Language existence and
maintenance (Dhaki, 2011: 4). This condition can be seen in the words rumah
begu (house of ghost), naleng tendi (summon spirits), ercibal (presenting
something as an offering), erpangir (washing hair with lemon juice, coconut oil,
ash kitchen, etc which is used to counteract the impending doom or as treatment)
which has been loss because there is nobody of young people thinks of those
words. It can be said fades away. The terms above loss with the arrival of religion
that has been legalized by country, which are Christian and Islamic to Karo Land
(Tanah Karo).
A language is fundamentally viewed as much more than a system of
communication. It is symbolic marker that distinguishes who belongs to a group
and who is outside (Dhaki, 2011: 4). In this case language in general and Karo
Language in particular is considered as a central feature of Karonese ethnics the
reflection of Karonese people identity. Theoretically, according Moyna (2009:
131-132) language changes resulted from the social and individual factors. Social
factors are the contact between speakers of different varieties due to conquest,
migration, culture, education, economic and religion. The social or external
factors of language change are not only including the type of input in the
environment but also the mechanisms and rates of input processing. The
mechanisms are concerned with the techniques and methods of input provided to
the language speakers, whereas rates deal with the amount of input itself. On the
other hand, the individual or internal factors deal with the language change which
resulted from an entire generation of child acquisition. This theory has been
proved on the changes of Karo Language lexicons above.
Many young people tend to use different words than the old generation
(Lishandi, 2013: 134). There are many forms of lexical loss in this language that
can threat the maintenance of this language. When young people see their words
and then use them in their daily communication, they will consider the word as
their native language. So, as a result it can make the native words lost. That’s why
the writer is interesting in observing the lexical change particularly lexical loss of
Karo Language in agriculture. The writer just focus on agriculture sector because
the lexical loss in general is too wide to observed and the research about lexical
loss of Karo Language in agriculture has not observed yet before. Moreover, the
influence of technology and modernization is more noticeably in agriculture
because almost of all people in Karo Land working in the field as a farmer. The
writer would like to know the processes of lexical loss and the reasons of lexical
loss occur in Karo Language.
Looking from Kamus Karo Indonesia (2002) point of view, so many
names of plants in Karo Language are not recognized anymore by Karo people
nowadays. For examples:
Katola (the clamber plant with long fruit and the seed looks like cucumber, the
outside of the skin is smooth but the inside is fibred).
Katemba (a kind of plant with red flower),
Kasemba (a kind of plant like shrubs, wide leave looks like fingers and the
ripe fruit was red blood colored, it usually used as coloring),
Kempidi (a kind of wild areca-palm/pinang and the fruit smaller than areca-
palm/pinang),
Kempawa (a kind of palm usually live in the forest), etc.
It is one of the reasons why the writer interested in observing lexical loss of Karo
Language in agriculture sector. There are so many plants that has not been planted
anymore by the Karo people and made in the names loss in the course of the
world. It automatically influenced the lexicon in Karo Language and resulted in
lexical loss in Karo language in agriculture. For that reasons, the writer interested
in observing in agriculture especially on agricutural’s plants, because so much
plants loss in the world and made those lexicons are lost automatically and not
recognized anymore by Karo people.
The phenomenon of lexical loss happens in Karo Language. One of the
cases of lexical loss in Karo Language happened in agriculture sector. For
example:
Cuan (similar to hoe used for tossing and turning the soil)
Ambung (a basket used as place of gambir)
Mesie (the first rice after harvest)
Permakan (shepherd of buffalo/cow)
Barajenggi (celery)
Lexical loss is due to internal and external factors (Varshney, 1995: 283).
He added that homonymic clash, phonetic attrition and the need to shorten
common words are common internal causes. Homonyms are words which have
the same phonemic structure but different meaning, for instance in Karo language
is abang. The first meaning is kapok tree that the flowers bloom simultaneously
and when the wind floating, the flower flying to everywhere. The second meaning
is brother. The existences of homonyms need to lead the word loss. It only does so
if the homonyms crop up in the same context and cause confusion. As there were
numerous contexts when the two could become confused, the first meaning of
abang dropped out of existence. That is one of the reasons why lexical loss occurs
in Karo language.
External causes of lexical loss are, broadly speaking, historical or social
(Varshney, 1995: 283). Words such as biwa, bedi-bedi, beras-beras, are not more
current, because these objects are no longer part of everyday life. They have thus
dropped out for historical reasons. Social reasons are more diverse. Sometimes
alternative lexical items are in use depending on religion or social class, as with
pairs such as table, napkin, and serviette, radio and wireless. If one of the pairs
becomes more socially acceptable, the other is likely to drop out of use. In Karo
Language, for example, the word tongat is more in use than pongat (common
designation for boys). An interesting type of social cause is lexical loss through
taboo. For example, palu is favored more than entek (beat). Karonese people
attempts to avoid the word entek because of taboo to spoken by people in there.
That word sometimes substituted by word palu, tukul or pekpek. From the
phenomenon arise some problems that make this research is interest to be
observed.
From the data above, the common lexical loss problems occurring in Karo
language because of: internal factors and external factors. Then it is considered to
analyze the lexical loss in Karo language especially in agriculture sector. Finally,
this study is entitled “Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo”. This study is
to find out the lexical loss which has occurred in Karo Language followed by how
and why the lexicons have been lost.
1.1 The Problems of the Study
The problems of the study is presented in the question of “How is the
agricultural lexicon loss of Cakap Karo?” this question then is elaborated into
more particular questions, such as the following.
1) What are the levels of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo?
2) How do the patterns of agricultural lexicons of Cakap Karo?
3) Why do the agricultural lexicons of Cakap Karo lose the way they do?
1.2 The Objectives of the Study
The research is aiming at studying the new phenomenon on lexical loss of
Cakap Karo. It specifically attempted to objectively describe the lexical loss as
well as the ways and reasons of lexical loss of Cakap Karo. Thus, the objectives
of this study were elaborated as following:
1) To investigate the level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo
2) To describe the patterns of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo
3) To explain the reasons of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo
1.3 The Scope of the Study
The various language change domains and the numerous lexical loss of
Karo language are results in the researcher’s scope of the study to the lexical
change, particularly to lexical loss of Cakap Karo of agriculture’s plants. More
specific it is in an attempt to provide an objective and explanative description of
the loss of agricultural lexis in Cakap Karo.
1.4 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the research are expected to be useful for the readers both
theoretically and practically in some respects:
1) Theoretically, the findings can be useful for enriching the theories on
lexical loss particularly for understanding the patterns and the reasons of
lexical loss in Cakap Karo.
2) Practically, the findings can be useful for those who have focus on
linguistic study especially the lexical loss in Cakap Karo. Moreover, the
ideas and the point of views of the findings can significantly be useful to
be used as:
a. Review of literature for the coming researchers.
b. Material reference for language learning particularly related to lexical
loss.
c. Material for helping people particularly Karo people in comprehending
and understanding Cakap Karo.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the description, explanation and discussion about the level,
patterns and reasons of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo in previous
chapters, conclusion is drawn as follows:
1)
In Cakap Karo there are 249 (two hundreds and fourty nine) lexicons
regarded as agricultural lexical loss that distributed to some
respondents might be classified into four levels of agricultural lexical
loss. The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of hard
plant category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 91.77%.
The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of plants for
food category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 85.19%.
The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of herbs plant
category is fourth level (not know and use), which 91.67%. And the
level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of kinds of flower
category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 92.31%. From
this data obtained, it is obvious that the highest level of agricultural
lexical loss in Cakap Karo occurred in kinds of flower category and
the lowest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occurred
in plants for food category.
2)
The agricultural lexical loss is proportionally patterned into potential
and total lexical loss. There are 103 (one hundred and three)
potential agricultural
lexical loss have found among 249
agriculture’s plant lexical losses. On the other hand, there are 146
(one hundred forty six) total agricultural lexical loss have found
among 249 agriculture’s plant lexical losses.
3.
The division of lexical loss reasons in Cakap Karo varies and is
considerably linkable with every sort single of lexical loss pattern.
Linguistic, prestige, culture and technology play the important role
as the influential causes of lexical loss.
5.2 Implications
The conclusion drawn above convincingly yields a couple of
implication:
1.
The levels of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occur on four
categories: hard plants, plants for food, herbs plant, kinds of flower.
The highest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occured
in kinds of flower category which highly due to the influence of
Bahasa Indonesia as the national and official language. The lowest
level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occured in plants for
food category which highly due to their attention to their culture and
they need to maintain their food supply, and also they have still
doing plantation to this plants to support their life..
2.
Eventhough the number of hard plants is much bigger but their
existence in Karo region has been loss because of the natural disaster
happened in recently days, like the eruption of Sinabung Mountain
made the plants are much loss and made the farmers experienced
nightmare to their field.
3.
The deviation of number of every single sort of lexical loss is
definitely implicated by the influence and status of Karo people’s
characteristics of life, culture, and technological development.
4.
In educational setting, the various loss of agricultural lexis in Cakap
Karo implicitly implicate that language standardization, i.e.
selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance, is not totally
employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated
problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Cakap Karo
to the next generation.
5.3 Suggestions
Dealing with the findings of this research which are problematic,
some worth considering pieces of suggestion are provided below.
1.
It is advisable to the language users of Cakap Karo to use Cakap
Karo in their daily life at home, office and school. By doing so, their
language attitude towards Cakap Karo itself will eventually increase.
2.
It is strongly suggested to the local Government of Karo regency to
take into account about the maintenance and standardization Cakap
Karo through the establishment of standardized Cakap Karo
dictionary, formulized Cakap Karo grammar, and specified spelling
system. Through this recorded material, the existence of Cakap Karo
can be handled down to the next generation.
3.
It is also expected to the teachers, students and other practitioners to
make writing in Cakap Karo. This technique is indispensably useful
to gain the access of another expert’s interest and attention about the
entity of Cakap Karo.
4.
To the linguists, researchers and those who are extremely interested
to conduct a scientific study on Cakap Karo, it is suggested to
investigate the practical techniques in decreasing the number of
lexical loss. Through this step, the development Cakap Karo will
emerge among other tribes in Indonesia.
REFERENCES
Adisutrisno, D. W. 2008. Semantics: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts.
Yogyakarta: C.V. Andi Offset.
Ali, M., and Mohideen, S. 2010. Awareness of Contemporary of Lexical Change
for Professional Competence in English Language Education. European
Journal of Social Sciences. 13(1), 101-107.
Bangun, T. (1986b). Manusia Batak Karo. Jakarta: Inti Idayah Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwind.
Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods. The United States of America: Allyn
and Bacon.
Brinton, L. J and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaer, Abdul. 1995. Sosiologistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Christiansen, M. H. and Dale, R. 1992. Language Evolution and Change. New
York: Cornell University Press.
Clark, R and Roberts. 1993. A Computational Model of Language Learn Ability
and Language Change. In Niyogy, P and Berwick, R. C. 1995. The
Logical Problem of Language Change. Massachusetts: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Cohen, L. et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Milton Park: Routledge.
Denham, K. and Lobeck, A. 2005. Teaching Kids about Language Change,
Language Endangerment, and Language Death. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Dhaki, Saniago. 2011. Lexical Change of Southern Dialect of Li Niha. Medan:
Postgraduate School of State University of Medan
Fenyvesi, A. and Zsigri, G. 2006. The Role of Perception in Loanwords Adaption:
The Fate of Initial Unstressed Syllables in American Finnish and
American Hungarian. SKY Journal of Linguistics. Vol 19, 131-146.
Gao, L. 2008. Language Change in Progress: Evidence from Computer-Mediated
Communication. Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on
Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). Vol. 1, pg. 361-377. Ohio: The Ohio
State University.
Gleason, H. A. 1961. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gonzales and Cruz. 2014. Approaching Lexical Loss in Canarian Spanish
Undergraduates: A Preliminary Assessment. Universidad de Las Palmas
de Gran Canaria: Revista de Linguistica y Lenguas Aplicadas 9 (2014),
33-34.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hana, J. 2006. Language Change. Retrived on December, 15th 2014 from
http://www.pdfound.com
Hickey, R. 1987. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. 2008. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. ThirdEdition. Harlow:
Person.
Hudson, R. A. 1985. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurford, J.M., and Heasley, B. 1995. Semantic: A Coursebook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, E. 1994. The Relationship between Lexical Variation and Lexical
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, M. C. And Singh. I. 2005. Exploring Language Change. London and New
York: Routledge.
Jufrizal. 1999. Introduction to General Linguistics. Padang: DIP Universitas
Negeri Padang.
Kaplan, R. B., and Baldauf Jr. R. B. 1997. Language Planning: From Practice to
Theory. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg:
Multilingual Matters.
Ke, J., Gong, T. And Wang, W. S-L. 2008. Language Change and Social
Networks. Communications in Computational Physics. 3(4), 935-949.
Lass, R. 1987 English Phonology and Phonological Theory: Synchronic and
Diachronic Studies. In Jones. M. C., and Singh, I. 2005. Exploring
Language Change.
Laycock, J. and Wurm, A. 1977. Language Borrowings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lincoln, YS and Guba, EG. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage
Publication.
Lindstrom, L. 2007. Bismala into Kwamera: Code-Mixing and Language Change
on Tanna (Vanuata). University of Tulsa Press, E-ISSN 1934-5275.
Lishandi, Bovi. 2013. Lexical Shift and Lexical Change in Minangkabaunese
Used in Batusangkar. Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.
Meyer, C. 2006. Multiple Penelitian. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods. California: Sage Publication.
Moyna, M. I. 2009. Child Acquisition and Language Change: Voseo Evolution in
Rio de la Plata Spanish in Elected Proceedings of the First Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium. Cascadilia Proceedings Project. (p. 131-142)
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. C. 1995. The Logical Problem of Language Change
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prinst, Darwin. 2002. Kamus Karo-Indonesia. Medan: Bina Media.
Purba, Elkana A. 2014. Perkembangan Aron Pada Masyarakat Karo di Desa
Rumah Kabanjahe Kecamatan Kabanjahe Kabupaten Karo. http//: www.
digilib. UNIMED.ac.id/UNIMED-undergraduate-sk142423/34596/Aron.
Retrived on June, 13th 2015.
Purba, Parentahen. 2007. Melestarikan Adat Nggeluh Kalak Karo. Medan : RG
Pinem.
Ramlan. 2014. Lexical Change of Pidie Dialect. Post Graduate School State
University of Medan: Thesis.
Schwartz et al. 2009. Socio-Linguistic Factor in Second Language Lexical
Knowledge. The Case of second-Generation of Russian-Jewish
Immigrants in Israel. 22(1), 15-28.
Sembiring, S. 2004. Ahli Kode Penutur Bahasa Karo Kelurahan Sempakata
Kecamatan Medan Selayang. Pascasarjana Universitas Sumatera Utara:
Thesis.
Varshney, R. L. 1995. An Introductory Textbook of Linguistics and Phonetics.
Rampur Bagh: Student Store.
Wardaugh, Ronald. 2007. An Introduction to Sociolinguistic. New York:
Blackwell.
Wagino.
2015.
Kabupaten
Karo.
http//:
www.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabupaten_Karo. Accessed on 20 February 2015.
Yang, C. D. 2001. Internal and External Forces in Language Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Postgraduate Program,
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Magister Humaniora
By:
INGRID GIBRETTA KHAIRANI GINTING
Register Number: 8136111034
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2015
ABSTRACT
Gibretta, I. NIM: 8136111034. Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap
Karo. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics. Study Program:
Postgraduate School. State University of Medan, 2015.
This qualitative research deals with a study on the lexical loss, which is
aimed at (1) investigating the level of agricultural lexical loss, (2) describing
the patterns of agricultural lexical loss, (3) explaining the reasons of
agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo. The empirical materials were
thoroughly and well-gathered from the document and interview. The highly
critical and systematic analysis with ‘Miles and Huberman Model’ reveals
that there were 249 (two hundreds forty nine) lexicons regarded as
agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo. This research has drawn the
following conclusions. Firstly, the level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap
Karo among hard plants, plants for food, herbs plant and kinds of flower
categories were occured in fourth level (not know and not use) which had
different percentages. The highest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap
Karo occurred in kinds of flower category (92.31%) and the lowest level
occurred in plants for food category (85.19%). Secondly, the agricultural
lexical loss was proportionally patterned into potential and total lexical loss.
There were 103 (one hundred and three) potential agricultural lexical loss
and 146 (one hundred forty six) total agricultural lexical loss. Thirdly, the
reasons of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo were linguistics, prestige
and technology factors. In educational setting, the various loss of
agricultural lexis in Cakap Karo implicitly implicate that language
standardization, i.e. selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance, is
not totally employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated
problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Cakap Karo to the
next generation.
ABSTRAK
Gibretta, I. NIM: 8136111034, Leksikal Agrikultural yang Hilang
dalam Cakap Karo, Tesis Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa
Inggris, Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2015.
Penelitian kualitatif ini berkenaan dengan kajian kehilangan leksikal yang
bertujuan untuk (1) menginvestigasi level dari leksikal agrikultural yang
hilang, (2) mendeskripsikan pola-pola leksikal agrikultural yang hilang, (3)
menjelaskan alasan-alasan dari leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dalam
Cakap Karo. Data-data empiris yang menyeluruh dan dikumpulkan dengan
baik diperoleh dari dokumen and wawancara. Analisis yang sangat kritis
dan sistematis dengan ‘Miles and Huberman Model’ mengungkapkan
bahwa ada 249 (dua ratus empat puluh sembilan) leksikon dianggap sebagai
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dalam Cakap Karo. Penelitian ini telah
menarik beberapa kesimpulan seperti berikut ini. Pertama, level dari leksikal
agrikultural yang hilang dalam Cakap Karo antara kategori tanaman keras,
tanaman untuk makanan, tanaman obat-obatan dan jenis-jenis bunga terjadi
di level keempat (tidah tahu dan tidak menggunakan) yang memiliki
persentasi yang berbeda. Level tertinggi dari leksikal agrikultural yang
hilang dalam Cakap Karo terjadi di kategori jenis-jenis bunga (92.31%) dan
level terendah terjadi di kategori tanaman untuk makanan (85.19%). Kedua,
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang berpola secara proporsional dalam
potensial dan total leksikal yang hilang. Ada 103 (seratus tiga) potensial
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang dan 146 (seratus empat puluh enam) total
leksikal agrikultural yang hilang. Ketiga, alasan-alasan hilangnya leksikal
agrikultural dalam Cakap Karo adalah faktor linguistik, gengsi, dan
teknologi. Dalam bidang pendidikan, berbagai hilangnya leksikal
agrikultural dalam Cakap Karo secara implisit mengimplikasikan bahwa
standardisasi bahasa, seperti seleksi, kodifikasi, elaborasi, dan penerimaan,
tidak benar-benar bekerja, oleh karena itu membawa masalah rumit yang
sangat besar menghambat keberhasilan mengajar dan belajar Cakap Karo
untuk generasi berikutnya.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A great thank to Heavenly Father Jesus Christ for blessing and
protection that have been continously poured to the writer in the process of
completing her studies and this piece of academic masterpiece. The last of
the prophets and upon her messengers and her families, and whoever
follows below have given her invaluable help, support, suggestions
motivation, encouragements during her study at the English Applied
Linguistics Study Program,
Postgraduate School State University of
Medan.
In the process of completing this thesis, there are many people who
have assisted and suggested the materials to be impossible to name all at
some deserve the honor to be noted.
Firstly, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Professor.
Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., her first adviser for the guidance, assistant,
encouragement and valuable suggestions and critics from these great heroes
in education, in the process of writing this thesis.
Secondly, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr.
Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., her second adviser for his available time spent for
consultation, great supervision and full support in shaping this thesis.
The writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head,
English Applied Linguistics Program, Professor. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
M.Pd., and his secretary Dr. Sri Minda Murni, MS and Farid who have
assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process
of her study in the postgraduate program.
She would like to take special occasion to express her gratitude to
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd., and Dr. Anni
Holila Pulungan, M. Hum., being her reviewers and examiners for the
valuable inputs to be include in this thesis. Furthermore, she would like to
express her high appreciation to all lectures of English Applied study
program UNIMED Medan, who have shared their knowledge and
experience her during study.
And thank you note addressed to her
colleagues in class A of English Applied Linguistics in take XXIII for the
cooperation and friendly being in the “same boat”.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like to
dedicate her love and sincerest gratitude to her beloved parents Tenang
Ginting and Rosmalinda Tarigan, her beloved sister Sagitha Devy Ginting
for her sincere and most reliable comfort and above all, their love and
support. May God consecrate to them. Amin.
Medan, August 2015
Ingrid Gibretta K Ginting
Register Number 8136111034
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................... x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study
.
1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ...................................................................................
9
1.3 The Objective of the Study ..................................................................................
9
1.4 The Scope of the Study ........................................................................................ 10
1.5 The Significances of the study ............................................................................ 10
CHAPTER II. RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW ...................... 11
2.1 Language Change ................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1 Definition of Language Change ................................................................... 11
2.1.2 The Causes of Language Change ................................................................... 13
2.1.2.1 Internal Factor .................................................................................... 13
2.1.2.2 External Factor ................................................................................... 16
2.2 Lexical Change .................................................................................................... 20
2.2.1 The Occurrence of Lexical Change .................................................................. 20
2.2.2 The Types of Lexical Change ........................................................................... 25
2.2.2.1 The Loss of Lexical Item ................................................................... 30
2.2.2.2 Semantic Change................................................................................ 31
2.2.2.3 The Creations of New Lexical Item ................................................... 32
2.2.3 The Causes of Lexical Change ......................................................................... 39
2.2.3.1 The Causes of Lexical Loss ............................................................... 40
2.2.3.2 The Causes of Semantic Change ........................................................ 41
2.2.3.3 The Causes of Creation of Lexical Item ............................................ 44
2.3 Karonese and Karo Language .............................................................................. 44
2.3.1 Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ........................................................ 46
2.4 Relevant Studies................................................................................................... 48
2.5 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................ 52
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD ........................................... 54
3.1 Research Design................................................................................................... 54
3.2 Data and Source of Data ...................................................................................... 54
3.3 The Instruments of Data Collection ..................................................................... 55
3.4 The Procedures of Data Collection ...................................................................... 56
3.5 The Technique of Data Analysis.......................................................................... 57
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study ............................................................................... 58
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 60
4.1 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 60
4.1.1 The Levels of Agricultural Lexical Loss in Cakap Karo ................................. 61
4.1.2 Patterns of Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ..................................... 65
4.1.2.1 Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ...................................... 65
4.1.2.1.1 Potential Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ......... 66
4.1.2.1.2 Total Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ............... 69
4.1.3 The Reasons of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ............................... 70
4.2 Research Findings ................................................................................................ 72
4.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 72
4.3.1 The Level of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ..................... 73
4.3.2 The Pattern of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ................... 74
4.3.3 The Reasons of Agricultural Lexical Loss of Cakap Karo ................. 75
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................... 76
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 76
5.2 Implications.......................................................................................................... 77
5.2 Suggestions .......................................................................................................... 78
REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX ............................................................................................ 84
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1. Words Considered Old-Fashioned in Modern Context ..................
Table 2.2. Distinctions between Derivation and Inflection .............................
Table 2.3. Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo ..................................................
Table 4.1. Percentage of Hard Plant’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ...................
Table 4.2. Percentage of Plants for Food’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ...........
Table 4.3. Percentage of Herbs Plant’s Agricultural Lexical Loss .................
Table 4.4. Percentage of Kinds of Flower’s Agricultural Lexical Loss ..........
Table 4.5. The Levels of Agricultural Lexical Loss in Cakap Karo ...............
22
35
47
61
62
62
63
65
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1. Factors of Language Change ........................................................
Figure 2.2. Dynamic of Language Acquisition and Language Change ..........
Figure 2.3. Language Change Domains ..........................................................
Figure 2.4. External and Internal Borrowing in Creating
New Lexical Item ............................................................................................
13
15
26
32
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1. List of Agricultural Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ...................... 84
Appendix 2. The Format of Questionnaire ...................................................... 92
Appendix 3. Agricultural’s Hard Plants Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ........... 98
Appendix 4. Agricultural’s Plants for Food Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo...... 102
Appendix 5. Agricultural’s Herbs Plant Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ........... 104
Appendix 6. Agricultural’s Flower Lexical Loss In Cakap Karo ................... 105
Appendix 7. Percentage of Agricultural’s Hard Plants In Cakap Karo .......... 106
Appendix 8. Percentage of Agricultural’s Plants For Food In Cakap Karo ... 110
Appendix 9. Potential Loss of Agricultural Lexicons of Cakap Karo ............ 112
Appendix 10. Total Loss of Agricultural Lexicons of Cakap Karo ................ 116
Appendix 11. Interview ................................................................................... 121
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Language change may happen to any language where the influencing
language is considered more prestigious and valuable. This study looks at the
phenomena of ethnic language change among Karonese people in linguistic area
of phonology, lexicon and semantic. The culture of Karonese people in the
highlands of Karo, North Sumatera, which is located approximately 78 km from
Medan, the capital of North Sumatera province, cannot separated from the
language that is used every day in daily life called Cakap Karo or Karo language,
because basically language is part of culture. With a number of speakers are above
five hundred thousand people in 1991 and domiciled in the adjacent area around
the 4 largest area of Tanah Karo in city districts – Kabanjahe, Simpang Empat
sub-district, city tourism of Berastagi dan Tigapanah sub-district and 10 other
districts make Cakap Karo as ethnic languages are still quite often used.
Indonesia has a language which is known as Bahasa Indonesia. Besides,
Indonesia has many local languages such as Javanese, Sundanese, Bataknese,
Karonese, etc. The Karonese is local language which is used by the Karo people
to communicate among them. It has some varieties, one of them is dialect. Jufrizal
(1999:101) defines dialect as regional variety of language that may different from
other varieties of the language in features of it is vocabulary, grammar and
pronunciation. In addition, Wardaugh (2007:40) explains that dialect sometime is
only if there is a strong tradition of writing in local variety. It means that dialect is
the language that is used by people who still have strict tradition strictly in a
regional.
Karo language as one of hundreds of Indonesian vernacular is an
Austronesia language spoken on Karo Land which is related to Simalungun
language, Alas language and Gayo language. Karonese people speak Karo
language, which is also known as Cakap Karo. Karo language is spoken in five
different dialects, namely dialects of Julu, Teruh Deleng, Singalur Lau, Jahe and
Liang Melas. Julu dialect is used in Kabanjahe sub-district, Simpang Empat, Tiga
Panah, Berastagi, and surrounding. Teruh Delung Dialect used in Kuta Buluh subdistrict and partially in Payung sub-district (Prinst, 2002). In his book, he added
that Singalur Lau dialect is used in Juhar, Tiga Binanga, Singgamanik and
Perbesi. Jahe dialect (Hilir) is used in Karo Jahe (Deliserdang-Medan) and
partially in Langkat (Hulu). Liang Melas dialect used in Lau Melas sub-district.
Those differences can be seen from the sound of word or from the intonation of
words. But most of Karonese people in North Sumatera use their own dialect
when they communicate with people from different dialect and they still
understand each other. Chaer (1995:81) says that variation is variation of language
occur because of social variation and regional variation. Variation of language
also occurs because of differences social status.
The Karo Language is used by Karonese people. But there are variations
of the language that are caused by regional and social variation. Differences of
social status, age, religion and culture also caused the language variation. Because
of those variations the result it makes language change. In changing of one
language, there are semantic changing, phonology, morphological, lexical, and
syntax changing. Language change can because of many factors like time, age,
regional, and social status. Thus, the dialect that is used by people in regional can
change, because of some factors like time, age, change of regional, social status
and the lost of native speakers.
Any language in the world tends to change which might be in the forms of
lexical, morphological, syntactical, semantic and pragmatic changes (Dhaki, 2011:
1). Specifically, lexical change is manifested in every single of lexical classes of a
language, such as noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, preposition, conjunction
and interjection. A case of lexical change in Karo language is the word abal-abal,
a tubes of bamboo used as a place to store salt for durability. It is regarded one of
lexical loss of Karo language because it is not practiced anymore. Another
empirical example is aron (clearing forests for agriculture and farms manually
using human hands, performed together as a wholesale activities of fellow
members of the community where everyone involved working as a form of mutual
aid) which is categorized as a verb becomes a noun which means “laborers who
do the grunt work for someone else”. This phenomenon, which is caused by the
metaphorical application, is called as semantic change due to its lexical class
movement from verb to noun. Empirically, the older speakers of Karo language
experience that the youngsters are reluctant to use their mother tongue so that they
sometimes mix between Karo Language and Indonesian Language. These
evidences serve as the beginning of language change itself. Having the previous
examples, it is feasible to assert that the lexical change contains types, patterns,
and reasons. Lexical change type is defined as the sort of change realized in the
lexicons, which might be loss of lexicon or change of meaning like the example
above.
The influence of modern things nowadays is regarded as factor for Karo
language existence and maintenance. The fashionable and innovative devices and
needs bridge the Karo language users’ attention to lexical modernization; a
process by which a language standardizing, enhancing, and expanding its domains
of activity (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997: 69). On the other hand, the popularity of
Karo Land as one of the most beautiful tourism areas governs the existence and
maintenance of Karo language. This is because the great possibility of codeswitching between Karo language and tourist’s language, which serve as a major
factor of a language change (Lindstrom, 2007: 232), take place.
There will be also a tendency to the change of Karo language when its
speakers are more educated. This has been proved by the fact the role of Karo
language use in educational setting is not the same at home. This is definitely
rooted from the empirical evidence that the medium of teaching and learning in
Karonese schools is Indonesian. Consequently, the students’ attitudes towards
Karo language eventually decreases which automatically makes Indonesian
dominantly used in their day life. This condition, which serves as determining
factor of lexical loss, makes the Karo lexical replaceable by Indonesian lexical
increasingly.
Religion is a particular system of faith and worship based on the belief of
language speakers serves as another influence of Karo Language existence and
maintenance (Dhaki, 2011: 4). This condition can be seen in the words rumah
begu (house of ghost), naleng tendi (summon spirits), ercibal (presenting
something as an offering), erpangir (washing hair with lemon juice, coconut oil,
ash kitchen, etc which is used to counteract the impending doom or as treatment)
which has been loss because there is nobody of young people thinks of those
words. It can be said fades away. The terms above loss with the arrival of religion
that has been legalized by country, which are Christian and Islamic to Karo Land
(Tanah Karo).
A language is fundamentally viewed as much more than a system of
communication. It is symbolic marker that distinguishes who belongs to a group
and who is outside (Dhaki, 2011: 4). In this case language in general and Karo
Language in particular is considered as a central feature of Karonese ethnics the
reflection of Karonese people identity. Theoretically, according Moyna (2009:
131-132) language changes resulted from the social and individual factors. Social
factors are the contact between speakers of different varieties due to conquest,
migration, culture, education, economic and religion. The social or external
factors of language change are not only including the type of input in the
environment but also the mechanisms and rates of input processing. The
mechanisms are concerned with the techniques and methods of input provided to
the language speakers, whereas rates deal with the amount of input itself. On the
other hand, the individual or internal factors deal with the language change which
resulted from an entire generation of child acquisition. This theory has been
proved on the changes of Karo Language lexicons above.
Many young people tend to use different words than the old generation
(Lishandi, 2013: 134). There are many forms of lexical loss in this language that
can threat the maintenance of this language. When young people see their words
and then use them in their daily communication, they will consider the word as
their native language. So, as a result it can make the native words lost. That’s why
the writer is interesting in observing the lexical change particularly lexical loss of
Karo Language in agriculture. The writer just focus on agriculture sector because
the lexical loss in general is too wide to observed and the research about lexical
loss of Karo Language in agriculture has not observed yet before. Moreover, the
influence of technology and modernization is more noticeably in agriculture
because almost of all people in Karo Land working in the field as a farmer. The
writer would like to know the processes of lexical loss and the reasons of lexical
loss occur in Karo Language.
Looking from Kamus Karo Indonesia (2002) point of view, so many
names of plants in Karo Language are not recognized anymore by Karo people
nowadays. For examples:
Katola (the clamber plant with long fruit and the seed looks like cucumber, the
outside of the skin is smooth but the inside is fibred).
Katemba (a kind of plant with red flower),
Kasemba (a kind of plant like shrubs, wide leave looks like fingers and the
ripe fruit was red blood colored, it usually used as coloring),
Kempidi (a kind of wild areca-palm/pinang and the fruit smaller than areca-
palm/pinang),
Kempawa (a kind of palm usually live in the forest), etc.
It is one of the reasons why the writer interested in observing lexical loss of Karo
Language in agriculture sector. There are so many plants that has not been planted
anymore by the Karo people and made in the names loss in the course of the
world. It automatically influenced the lexicon in Karo Language and resulted in
lexical loss in Karo language in agriculture. For that reasons, the writer interested
in observing in agriculture especially on agricutural’s plants, because so much
plants loss in the world and made those lexicons are lost automatically and not
recognized anymore by Karo people.
The phenomenon of lexical loss happens in Karo Language. One of the
cases of lexical loss in Karo Language happened in agriculture sector. For
example:
Cuan (similar to hoe used for tossing and turning the soil)
Ambung (a basket used as place of gambir)
Mesie (the first rice after harvest)
Permakan (shepherd of buffalo/cow)
Barajenggi (celery)
Lexical loss is due to internal and external factors (Varshney, 1995: 283).
He added that homonymic clash, phonetic attrition and the need to shorten
common words are common internal causes. Homonyms are words which have
the same phonemic structure but different meaning, for instance in Karo language
is abang. The first meaning is kapok tree that the flowers bloom simultaneously
and when the wind floating, the flower flying to everywhere. The second meaning
is brother. The existences of homonyms need to lead the word loss. It only does so
if the homonyms crop up in the same context and cause confusion. As there were
numerous contexts when the two could become confused, the first meaning of
abang dropped out of existence. That is one of the reasons why lexical loss occurs
in Karo language.
External causes of lexical loss are, broadly speaking, historical or social
(Varshney, 1995: 283). Words such as biwa, bedi-bedi, beras-beras, are not more
current, because these objects are no longer part of everyday life. They have thus
dropped out for historical reasons. Social reasons are more diverse. Sometimes
alternative lexical items are in use depending on religion or social class, as with
pairs such as table, napkin, and serviette, radio and wireless. If one of the pairs
becomes more socially acceptable, the other is likely to drop out of use. In Karo
Language, for example, the word tongat is more in use than pongat (common
designation for boys). An interesting type of social cause is lexical loss through
taboo. For example, palu is favored more than entek (beat). Karonese people
attempts to avoid the word entek because of taboo to spoken by people in there.
That word sometimes substituted by word palu, tukul or pekpek. From the
phenomenon arise some problems that make this research is interest to be
observed.
From the data above, the common lexical loss problems occurring in Karo
language because of: internal factors and external factors. Then it is considered to
analyze the lexical loss in Karo language especially in agriculture sector. Finally,
this study is entitled “Loss of Agricultural Lexis in Cakap Karo”. This study is
to find out the lexical loss which has occurred in Karo Language followed by how
and why the lexicons have been lost.
1.1 The Problems of the Study
The problems of the study is presented in the question of “How is the
agricultural lexicon loss of Cakap Karo?” this question then is elaborated into
more particular questions, such as the following.
1) What are the levels of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo?
2) How do the patterns of agricultural lexicons of Cakap Karo?
3) Why do the agricultural lexicons of Cakap Karo lose the way they do?
1.2 The Objectives of the Study
The research is aiming at studying the new phenomenon on lexical loss of
Cakap Karo. It specifically attempted to objectively describe the lexical loss as
well as the ways and reasons of lexical loss of Cakap Karo. Thus, the objectives
of this study were elaborated as following:
1) To investigate the level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo
2) To describe the patterns of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo
3) To explain the reasons of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo
1.3 The Scope of the Study
The various language change domains and the numerous lexical loss of
Karo language are results in the researcher’s scope of the study to the lexical
change, particularly to lexical loss of Cakap Karo of agriculture’s plants. More
specific it is in an attempt to provide an objective and explanative description of
the loss of agricultural lexis in Cakap Karo.
1.4 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the research are expected to be useful for the readers both
theoretically and practically in some respects:
1) Theoretically, the findings can be useful for enriching the theories on
lexical loss particularly for understanding the patterns and the reasons of
lexical loss in Cakap Karo.
2) Practically, the findings can be useful for those who have focus on
linguistic study especially the lexical loss in Cakap Karo. Moreover, the
ideas and the point of views of the findings can significantly be useful to
be used as:
a. Review of literature for the coming researchers.
b. Material reference for language learning particularly related to lexical
loss.
c. Material for helping people particularly Karo people in comprehending
and understanding Cakap Karo.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the description, explanation and discussion about the level,
patterns and reasons of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo in previous
chapters, conclusion is drawn as follows:
1)
In Cakap Karo there are 249 (two hundreds and fourty nine) lexicons
regarded as agricultural lexical loss that distributed to some
respondents might be classified into four levels of agricultural lexical
loss. The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of hard
plant category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 91.77%.
The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of plants for
food category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 85.19%.
The level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of herbs plant
category is fourth level (not know and use), which 91.67%. And the
level of agricultural lexical loss of Cakap Karo of kinds of flower
category is fourth level (not know and use), which is 92.31%. From
this data obtained, it is obvious that the highest level of agricultural
lexical loss in Cakap Karo occurred in kinds of flower category and
the lowest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occurred
in plants for food category.
2)
The agricultural lexical loss is proportionally patterned into potential
and total lexical loss. There are 103 (one hundred and three)
potential agricultural
lexical loss have found among 249
agriculture’s plant lexical losses. On the other hand, there are 146
(one hundred forty six) total agricultural lexical loss have found
among 249 agriculture’s plant lexical losses.
3.
The division of lexical loss reasons in Cakap Karo varies and is
considerably linkable with every sort single of lexical loss pattern.
Linguistic, prestige, culture and technology play the important role
as the influential causes of lexical loss.
5.2 Implications
The conclusion drawn above convincingly yields a couple of
implication:
1.
The levels of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occur on four
categories: hard plants, plants for food, herbs plant, kinds of flower.
The highest level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occured
in kinds of flower category which highly due to the influence of
Bahasa Indonesia as the national and official language. The lowest
level of agricultural lexical loss in Cakap Karo occured in plants for
food category which highly due to their attention to their culture and
they need to maintain their food supply, and also they have still
doing plantation to this plants to support their life..
2.
Eventhough the number of hard plants is much bigger but their
existence in Karo region has been loss because of the natural disaster
happened in recently days, like the eruption of Sinabung Mountain
made the plants are much loss and made the farmers experienced
nightmare to their field.
3.
The deviation of number of every single sort of lexical loss is
definitely implicated by the influence and status of Karo people’s
characteristics of life, culture, and technological development.
4.
In educational setting, the various loss of agricultural lexis in Cakap
Karo implicitly implicate that language standardization, i.e.
selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance, is not totally
employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated
problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Cakap Karo
to the next generation.
5.3 Suggestions
Dealing with the findings of this research which are problematic,
some worth considering pieces of suggestion are provided below.
1.
It is advisable to the language users of Cakap Karo to use Cakap
Karo in their daily life at home, office and school. By doing so, their
language attitude towards Cakap Karo itself will eventually increase.
2.
It is strongly suggested to the local Government of Karo regency to
take into account about the maintenance and standardization Cakap
Karo through the establishment of standardized Cakap Karo
dictionary, formulized Cakap Karo grammar, and specified spelling
system. Through this recorded material, the existence of Cakap Karo
can be handled down to the next generation.
3.
It is also expected to the teachers, students and other practitioners to
make writing in Cakap Karo. This technique is indispensably useful
to gain the access of another expert’s interest and attention about the
entity of Cakap Karo.
4.
To the linguists, researchers and those who are extremely interested
to conduct a scientific study on Cakap Karo, it is suggested to
investigate the practical techniques in decreasing the number of
lexical loss. Through this step, the development Cakap Karo will
emerge among other tribes in Indonesia.
REFERENCES
Adisutrisno, D. W. 2008. Semantics: An Introduction to the Basic Concepts.
Yogyakarta: C.V. Andi Offset.
Ali, M., and Mohideen, S. 2010. Awareness of Contemporary of Lexical Change
for Professional Competence in English Language Education. European
Journal of Social Sciences. 13(1), 101-107.
Bangun, T. (1986b). Manusia Batak Karo. Jakarta: Inti Idayah Press.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. London: George Allen & Unwind.
Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods. The United States of America: Allyn
and Bacon.
Brinton, L. J and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chaer, Abdul. 1995. Sosiologistik Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Christiansen, M. H. and Dale, R. 1992. Language Evolution and Change. New
York: Cornell University Press.
Clark, R and Roberts. 1993. A Computational Model of Language Learn Ability
and Language Change. In Niyogy, P and Berwick, R. C. 1995. The
Logical Problem of Language Change. Massachusetts: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Cohen, L. et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Milton Park: Routledge.
Denham, K. and Lobeck, A. 2005. Teaching Kids about Language Change,
Language Endangerment, and Language Death. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Dhaki, Saniago. 2011. Lexical Change of Southern Dialect of Li Niha. Medan:
Postgraduate School of State University of Medan
Fenyvesi, A. and Zsigri, G. 2006. The Role of Perception in Loanwords Adaption:
The Fate of Initial Unstressed Syllables in American Finnish and
American Hungarian. SKY Journal of Linguistics. Vol 19, 131-146.
Gao, L. 2008. Language Change in Progress: Evidence from Computer-Mediated
Communication. Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on
Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). Vol. 1, pg. 361-377. Ohio: The Ohio
State University.
Gleason, H. A. 1961. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gonzales and Cruz. 2014. Approaching Lexical Loss in Canarian Spanish
Undergraduates: A Preliminary Assessment. Universidad de Las Palmas
de Gran Canaria: Revista de Linguistica y Lenguas Aplicadas 9 (2014),
33-34.
Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hana, J. 2006. Language Change. Retrived on December, 15th 2014 from
http://www.pdfound.com
Hickey, R. 1987. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. 2008. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. ThirdEdition. Harlow:
Person.
Hudson, R. A. 1985. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurford, J.M., and Heasley, B. 1995. Semantic: A Coursebook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, E. 1994. The Relationship between Lexical Variation and Lexical
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, M. C. And Singh. I. 2005. Exploring Language Change. London and New
York: Routledge.
Jufrizal. 1999. Introduction to General Linguistics. Padang: DIP Universitas
Negeri Padang.
Kaplan, R. B., and Baldauf Jr. R. B. 1997. Language Planning: From Practice to
Theory. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg:
Multilingual Matters.
Ke, J., Gong, T. And Wang, W. S-L. 2008. Language Change and Social
Networks. Communications in Computational Physics. 3(4), 935-949.
Lass, R. 1987 English Phonology and Phonological Theory: Synchronic and
Diachronic Studies. In Jones. M. C., and Singh, I. 2005. Exploring
Language Change.
Laycock, J. and Wurm, A. 1977. Language Borrowings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lincoln, YS and Guba, EG. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage
Publication.
Lindstrom, L. 2007. Bismala into Kwamera: Code-Mixing and Language Change
on Tanna (Vanuata). University of Tulsa Press, E-ISSN 1934-5275.
Lishandi, Bovi. 2013. Lexical Shift and Lexical Change in Minangkabaunese
Used in Batusangkar. Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang.
Meyer, C. 2006. Multiple Penelitian. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A
Sourcebook of New Methods. California: Sage Publication.
Moyna, M. I. 2009. Child Acquisition and Language Change: Voseo Evolution in
Rio de la Plata Spanish in Elected Proceedings of the First Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium. Cascadilia Proceedings Project. (p. 131-142)
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. C. 1995. The Logical Problem of Language Change
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Prinst, Darwin. 2002. Kamus Karo-Indonesia. Medan: Bina Media.
Purba, Elkana A. 2014. Perkembangan Aron Pada Masyarakat Karo di Desa
Rumah Kabanjahe Kecamatan Kabanjahe Kabupaten Karo. http//: www.
digilib. UNIMED.ac.id/UNIMED-undergraduate-sk142423/34596/Aron.
Retrived on June, 13th 2015.
Purba, Parentahen. 2007. Melestarikan Adat Nggeluh Kalak Karo. Medan : RG
Pinem.
Ramlan. 2014. Lexical Change of Pidie Dialect. Post Graduate School State
University of Medan: Thesis.
Schwartz et al. 2009. Socio-Linguistic Factor in Second Language Lexical
Knowledge. The Case of second-Generation of Russian-Jewish
Immigrants in Israel. 22(1), 15-28.
Sembiring, S. 2004. Ahli Kode Penutur Bahasa Karo Kelurahan Sempakata
Kecamatan Medan Selayang. Pascasarjana Universitas Sumatera Utara:
Thesis.
Varshney, R. L. 1995. An Introductory Textbook of Linguistics and Phonetics.
Rampur Bagh: Student Store.
Wardaugh, Ronald. 2007. An Introduction to Sociolinguistic. New York:
Blackwell.
Wagino.
2015.
Kabupaten
Karo.
http//:
www.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabupaten_Karo. Accessed on 20 February 2015.
Yang, C. D. 2001. Internal and External Forces in Language Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.