The alternative hypothesis 1.1 is that there is a significant difference between the three age groups
studied here age 15–29, 30–49, and 50+. In this case, it is expected to find that JM usage is lower and attitudes are more negative among the young versus the middle-aged and old people. As they examined a
study of Canadian usage of chesterfieldcouchsofa Chambers and Trudgill 1998 described the emergence of fashionable trends towards using linguistic innovations, where youth are generally at the forefront. And a
dramatic language choice shift according to age was recorded by Wong 2000: of those under 30 years old in her study of the Sabah Malay dialect, 100 spoke the LWC, while none spoke their mother tongue, in
contrast with the oldest generation in the study, where 0 spoke the LWC, and 66.66 spoke the mother tongue alone. With a strong influence from Indonesian, it is proposed here that Jambi Malay youth are
more likely than other age groups to adopt usage of Indonesian in lieu of Jambi Malay, which they may consider to be the language of the old people.
Alternative hypothesis 1.2 is that there is a significant difference between the four education
levels studied no educationdid not finish primary school, finished primary school, finished junior high school, finished high school. In the event of a difference here, the prediction is that the higher the
education level, the lower the Jambi Malay usage and the more negative the attitudes. Significant differences are especially expected to be seen between no education and finished high school, and finished
primary school
with finished high school.
Alternative hypothesis 1.3 is that there is a significant difference between males and females. A
likely finding here would be that females, being that they have generally received less education and spend less time working outside of the home,
19
have higher JM usage and more positive attitudes towards it. This was the case in another language contact situation in Clyne’s study of Australian immigrants 1985: men
shifted from using the vernacular at a much higher rate.
Finally, alternative hypothesis 1.4 is that there is a significant difference between Mudung Laut
and Mudung Darat, with Mudung Laut displaying lower JM usage and more negative attitudes due to its proximity to the city.
1.5 Chapter summary
In this chapter we have introduced the research question, and the background of the area in which the study to address the research question took place. The goals of the study and hypotheses as to the outcome were
then given. In the next chapter, a review of theories and studies related to this study is provided, followed by a description of the methodology in chapter 3. Chapter 4 focuses on the results of the analysis, and,
finally, in chapter 5 conclusions and recommendations are discussed.
19
There are exceptions to these generalizations. For example, some Jambi Malay women from Seberang who have completed university, and some find employment in Jambi City. However, data from this research support these assertions, particularly for
women above age thirty see sections 4.4.2, 4.4.5, 4.4.7.
12
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
In chapter 1 some background notes were presented about the area of study, including the language situation in and around Jambi city. The research objectives were also addressed. In this chapter prominent
sociolinguistic theories, especially those relating to language vitality, are discussed in section 2.2. In section 2.3, the discussion is narrowed to issues related to minority language maintenance or language shift
specifically in Indonesia. Finally, in section 2.4 the focus is on the Jambi Malay JM language: its potential language strength based on the theories discussed in section 2.2, and efforts that have been made
to develop and preserve the JM language and culture.
2.2 Perspectives on language maintenance and shift
In recent years, as the rise in dominance of a very few world languages has occurred, there has been much discussion about the fate of minority languages. According to Mühlhäusler 1996, a clear pecking order
has emerged, with very few world languages at the top and a large number of barely viable minority languages at the bottom. As a result, it is a fact that sometimes languages die out, and that minority
languages may be at greater risk for this. Aitchison 2001:236, 242, 247 describes language death when no one speaks the language any longer in terms of language “suicide” and language “murder”. Language
suicide usually occurs when two languages are fairly similar to one another, and the less prestigious of the two borrows increasingly heavily from the one that is more prestigious p. 236.
The process of language murder typically begins with a small isolated language group that comes into contact with a more socially useful language Aitchison 2001:242. Bilingualism generally follows,
and can happen for a time, but later generations tend to use the minority language less and less and lose proficiency in it, eventually leading to the disappearance of the “old language” p. 242; cf. Fasold 1984.
Since languages in these types of situations do not always end up as victims of “suicide” or “murder”, a closer look at the issues that contribute to language death and its converse, language
maintenance, is needed. Helpful for this discussion is the model that Giles put forth in 1977 to systematize the many factors operating in minority language maintenance. The key concept is concerned with
ethnolinguistic vitality . According to this concept, high vitality will lead to maintenance, or even shift
towards extended use, while low vitality will result in shift towards the majority language or a more prestigious vernacular. Ethnolinguistic vitality consists of three main variables: status, demographic factors,
and institutional support factors Giles 1977. As far as status is concerned, economic status is the most prominent factor. Where groups of
minority language speakers have a relatively low economic status, there is a strong tendency to shift towards the majority language Giles 1977. Economic changes i.e. modernization, industrialization,
urbanization are important influences on language maintenance and shift. Closely related to economic status is social status, and emerging from social status, language status. Language status may be especially
low if the minority group speaks a dialect of the majority language. Sociohistorical status derives from a group’s history. It can lead towards solidarity where groups recognize periods in which they had to defend
their ethnic identity or their independence.
Demographic factors primarily involve the number of members of a linguistic minority group, and their geographical distribution Giles 1977. If the number of speakers of a certain language decreases,
language shift away from the minority language is likely to occur. The number of speakers of a language can be strongly influenced by interethnic marriages. In terms of geographical distribution, concentration of
a particular ethnolinguistic group in a certain area increases chances of maintaining their language. Urbanrural distinctions are especially important when discussing geographical distribution, since rural
groups generally tend to preserve a minority language much longer than urban groups. Possibly, communication patterns and the absence or presence of daily social pressure to use the prestigious language
are the operating factors, rather than geographical distribution alone Appel and Muysken 1987.
