LANGUAGE ATTITUDE OF INTER-ETHNIC MARRIAGE PAKPAKNESE PEOPLE TOWARDS THEIR ETHNIC LANGUAGE.

(1)

LANGUAGE ATTITUDE OF INTER-ETHNIC MARRIAGE PAKPAKNESE

PEOPLE TOWARDS THEIR ETHNIC LANGUAGE

A Thesis

Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora By:

KRESNA NINGSIH MANIK

Registration Number: 8136112040

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

MEDAN

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

KRESNA NINGSIH MANIK, Reg. No. 8136112040. Language Attitude of inter-ethnic Marriage Pakpaknese People towards Their Ethnic Language. English Applied Linguistics, Pascasarjana Program, State University of Medan, 2015.

This study deals with language attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language. It aims to find out the attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan. The data were collected from the inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people living in Sumbul Pegagan. The study employs qualitative research design with some informants deal with the need of this research to get the understanding on this study. The subjects of this study were 16 couples of Pakpak people having inter-ethnic marriage and the subjects were classified based on the background of the couple for collecting the data. The instruments used for collecting data were questionnaire sheet, observation sheet, and recording. The data of this study were questionnaire sheet and recorded observation. The data from questionnaire sheet were used to examine the language attitude and the factor and reason causing the attitude the way it is. The data was analyzed through Miles and Huberman’ technique. The findings show that there are 9 (56, 25 %) have the negative attitude and 7 (43. 75 %) have the positive attitude. The factors which influence the negative attitude are; bilingualism, social factor and demographic factor. The analysis of the data indicates that the dominantly spoken language spoken by dominant people and their couple language affect the negative attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak people which cause them having the less frequency to use their own ethnic language in daily life communication.

(7)

KRESNA NINGSIH MANIK, Reg. No. 8136112040. Language Attitude of inter-ethnic Marriage Pakpaknese People towards Their Ethnic Language. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Progrma Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan, 2015.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan sikap bahasa perkawinan campuran Suku Pakpak terhadap bahasa daerah nya sendiri. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan sikap bahasa perkawinan campuran Suku Pakpak terhadap bahasa daerahnya. Data dikumpulkan dari orang-orang Pakpak yang memiliki pernikahan campuran di Sumbul Pegagan. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif dengan beberapa informan yang disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan penelitian untuk mendapatkan pemahaman yang diperlukan untuk penelitian ini. Subjek pada penelitian ini sebanyak16 pasangan yaitu orang-orang Pakpak dengan pernikahan campuran dan subjek itu sendiri diklasifikasikan berdasarkan latar belakang pasangan untuk pengumpulan data. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan dalam mengumpulkan data adalah angket, lembar observasi, dan rekaman. Data yang diperoleh dari penelitian ini digunakan untuk menguji sikap bahasa dan faktor dan serta alasan yang menyebabkan sikap bahasa tersebut demikian. Data dianalisis menggunakan teori Miles dan Huberman. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada 9 orang Suku Pakpak atau sekitar 56, 25 % memiliki sikap negatif terhadap bahasa daerah Pakpakdan7 orang atau sekitar43. 75 % memiliki sikap positif. Faktor yang mempengaruhi sikap negative itu sendiri yaitu; bilingualisme, faktor social and faktor tempat tinggal. Analisis data menunjukkan bahwa bahasa yang paling dominan dipergunakan dan bahasa pasangan subjek yang kemudian mempengaruhi sikap negatif terhadap bahasa daerah mereka sendiri yang menyebabkan semakin berkurangnya frekuensi atau intensitas penggunaan bahasa daerah mereka sendiri dalam komunikasi sehari-hari.

(8)

(9)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks, praises and holiness be to God Almighty, Jesus Christ for enabling the completion of the thesis, for blessing every time and everywhere, for guiding in every single second of my life, and for not letting me down when the troubles struck and when a problem was too big for a man to enforce and to solve, and above all for being the foundation of my life. Thanks also as everything good comes to me by His allowance. It is a truth that along the completion of the thesis, aids, helps, and support physically and psychologically contributed by many other people.

For the first, the greatest attitude goes to Dr. Zainuddin, M. Hum, as the writer first thesis consultant and Dr. Syahron Lubis, M.A who have helped and contributed many things for the betterment and perfection of the thesis and for the administrative requirements. God always bless them.

Next, expression of thanks to my best lecturer and all at one my living inspiration and as the former Head of English Applied Linguistics, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, has given much understanding, abundant knowledge, outstanding science precisely about applied linguistics schools, and generally the phenomenon phenomena in social life. You always inspire every single of person who listens to you in order to be able to get in to the unloaded phenomena by intention to be able to present the new breakthrough to many sides of society. I sometimes think who will be the next you a head. God bless him.

The next abundant gratitude goes to the three examiners of mine, Dr. Siti Aisyah ginting, M. Pd; Dr. Thyrhaya Zein Sinar, M.A and; Dr. Sri Minda Murni , M.S. your critics and suggesstions really build my thesis betterment, your thought and every single of sentence comes out from you extremely contricutes to my thesis perfection. Thanks for your meaningful time serving for me checking and revising my thesis, hopefully you three always blessed by God Almighty in every single of your time.

Grateful to the two Professors inspiring, my professor inspirations, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M. A, Ph. D, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing M. Pd, you are the icon of education from North Sumatera inspiring many students, your ways of teaching are unforgettable, your high dedication to building education give the great contribution to

(10)

every people who are thirsty at science and education. Quality is your brand and breakthrough is your motto. Someday, I wish I could be like you both, always delight, fabulous, and embrace the imperfections.

I would like to extend my gratitude to Brother Farid Ma’ruf, administrative staff at Applied Linguistics Study Program, it is undeniable that his help and supports in administrative department take care of the whole administrative affairs ease the students’ affairs successful, effective and efficient including the writer. God bless him.

Thankful also to staff in library of UNIMED that have helped and prepared many books and allowed the research of the study placed in the library. Thanks and God be with them forever.

Thanks abundant to my best friends forever the students of LTBI B3 on the deep togetherness during lectureship went on, sad and cheer we are always together, our togetherness inspire in order to always spirit in completing all assignment requirements. I miss you all, I would like to meet you all soon. Be always blessing to you

Forever thanks and abudance love to my family, my beloved Daddy (A. Manik) and my belover Mom (alm.M. Pakpahan), and especially to my preferential grandma, my living inspiration, my life and you are my everything, thanks for your love and support to me, you have done my things for the sake of making me happy everytime, especially my Grandma and Mom. Mom,,though you are not be with me anymore but your love will always attend me and I promise I will be the best for you and Dad, I will make real your dreams in me come true. I love you Mom. My endless love is their own.

Thanks also to all of my relatives, my Beloved Grand ma, uda Zippo, Uda Ayu, bou Rehap, bou Hetty, Bou Nando, bou Niko, bou Shanty, bou Lamty, for being a good family to me and for advices and love encouragement. God loves and blesses their heart and life.

Abudance thanks to my idol of my heart, Aditya Napitupulu on his love, support and help when some difficulties were being faced during the completion this thesis. Not forgetting his parents on support, advice, prayer and attention given to me during the thesis completion of mine. Hopefully, our hope realized and made real by

(11)

God, and every our plan for the betterment of the future can be achieved by us agrees with the time runs its part.

Thanks for them that can not be written on this page. I do not mean to reduce my love and bless to them, but it’s a matter of limitation. Truly thanks for them and God be with them.

Medan, September 2015

The Writer

Kresna Ningsih Manik

(12)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1. The Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. The Problem of the Study ... 7

1.3. The Objectives of the Study ... 7

1.4. The Scope of the Study ... 8

1.5. The Significances of the Study ... 8

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Attitude ... 10

2.2. Classification of Attitude ... 11

2.3. Formation of Attitudes... 12

2.3.1. Language Attitude ... 14

2.3.2. Positive Language Attitude ... 14

2.3.3. Language Maintenance ... 16

2.3.4. Negative Language Attitude ... 19

2.3.5. Language Shift ... 21

2.4. Intermarriage ... 29

2.5. Pakpaknese ... 29

2.5.1 Pakpaknese Pegagan ... 31

2.6. Pakpaknese Ethnic Language ... 32

2.7. Sumbul Pegagan ... 36

(13)

2.9. Conceptual Framework... 40

CHAPTER III: METHOD OF RESEARCH 3.1. Reseach Design ... 42

3.2. Subject ... 43

3.3. The Technique of Collecting Data ... 43

3.4. The Technique of Analyzing Data... 44

3.5. The Trustworthiness of the Study ... 47

CHAPTER IV: DATA AND ANALYSIS 4.1. Data Analysis ... 50

4.2. Language Attitude ... 51

4.2.1.Negative Language Attitude, Realization and Reason………. 52

4.2.1.1 Language Disloyalty ... 55

4.2.1.2 Language of Pride Lack………. 57

4.2.1. 3 Unawareness of the Norm………. 58

4.2.2 Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak men with Batak Toba Women………. 59

4.2.3 Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak women with Batak Toba men……… 61

4.2.4 Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak men with Simalungun Women………. 63

4.2.5 Attitude of Inter-ethnic Marriage Pakpak Woman with Simalungun Men.... 65

4.3 Findings……… 68

(14)

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1. Conclusion ... . 74

5.2. Suggestion ... . 75

REFERENCES ... . 76

(15)

(16)

List of Table

Table 2.1 Categories of Positive Attitude of Community

Member towards Language……… 15 Table 2.2 Categories of Negative Attitude of Community

Members towards Language………. 21

Table 2.3. Economic, Social, Politic, and Demographic

Factors Contributes to Language Attitude and Its Effect………. 28

Table. 2.4. This table shows the percentage of ethnic

group population in Sumbul Pegagan………. 32 Table 2.5. The percentage of ethnic group population in Sumbul Pegagan…… 33 Table 4.1. Positive and negative attitudes of inter-ethnic marriage

Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic marriage……… 44

Table 4.2. Language Disloyalty towards Pakpaknese ethnic language………… 44

Table 4.3. Language Lack of Pride towards Pakpaknese ethnic language……... 49

Table 4.4. Unawareness of the norms towards Pakpaknese ethnic language…… 53 Table. 4.5 Category of intonation use of Pakpaknese ethnic language…………. 54 Table 4.6. Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic

marriage Pakpak men with Batak Toba Women... 56 Table 4.7. Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic

marriage Pakpak women with Batak Toba men……… 59 Table 4.8. Attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak men with Simalungun Women………. 61 Table 4.9. Attitude of Inter-ethnic Marriage Pakpak Woman with

(17)

Table 4.10. The Patterns of Language Attitude of Pakpaknese

(18)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

APPENDIX 1 ……… 81

APPENDIX 2 ……… 82

APPENDIX 3 ……… 98

(19)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Study

The effect of inter-marriage, including inter-ethnic marriage, the most-spoken language use of dominant community’ in social interactions affect Pakpaknese social life in many aspects especially to their attitude towards their ethnic language determining their ethnic language survival. Attitude towards language completely determines language maintenance, language shift, language loss or even language death.

The inter-marriage phenomenon is one of many challenges which examine the language maintenance whether the language will maintain or shift by its speakers (Fishman, 1972). Someone having intermarriage will face the condition in which she or he will decide what language they are going to use as everyday delivery language at family domain, whether they are going to keep using their language or their couple’s language, they are going to be more confused if their couple’ language is the most dominantly and commonly spoken in which they inhabit, for some people willing or unwilling they begin to study their couple’s language.

This phenomenon occurs to Pakpaknese people having inter-ethnic marrage tha it is going to affect their attitude towards their ethnic language maintenance. If they would like their ethnic language maintained, they have to have positive attitude to their own ethnic language by way to keep using it in daily life. In fact, the marriage phenomenon including the inter-ethnic marriage gives the great influence to the language shift or language maintenance of the two people having ethnic marriage. If one of the languages of the two people having inter-marriage is chosen as the leading language or because the language itself is the dominantly

(20)

spoken or commonly spoken then it is going to affect other ethnic language maintenance or even brings it behind which is hard to control. On one side, it is actually leads the Pakpaknese community to get positive, such as ease them to get closer to the clan of the couple with whom they get married, in order to build a good relationship with other ethnics that will be able to ease them tobe accepted in the clan of their couple, and in order can keep maintaining during live in area of dominant community if the area they live is densely populated by the clan of their couple, but on the other side, it also supports negative effect to Pakpaknese especially for Pakpaknese who live in Sumbul Pegagan, they become apathetic to the use of Pakpaknese ethnic language, and shows their life style which are not suitable anymore to Pakpaknese’ norms.

In Sumbul Pegagan, Bahasa Batak Toba actually is the most spoken language as Batak Toba people are the dominant ethnic and automatically almost all people speak Batak Toba language with no exception other sub-ethnic of Batak and even other ethnics. The influence of this most-spoken language use affects action, awareness, and attitudes to some Pakpaknese communities to use their ethnic language. This can be seen in the phenomena of less frequent of using Pakpaknese ethnic language, where they tend to speak Batak Toba language rather than their own ethnic language in daily life interaction, working place, family, and public places. For instance, at home the indigenous Pakpaknese people who get married with other sub-ethnic of Batak most speak in Batak Toba language to their children and their neighbors even they are same Pakpaknese.

Furthermore, young generations of Pakpaknese people having intermarriage prefer using Batak Toba language as delivery language in daily life. This indication is very risky for the existence and maintenance of Pakpaknese ethnic language, they speak Batak Toba language on the street, in schools the Pakpaknese young generations of inter-marriage speak Indonesian

(21)

language and speak Batak Toba in out of school, the adults speak Batak Toba language in markets, the workers speak Indonesian language in working domain and sometimes speak Batak Toba language in offices, and some other people in some places tend to speak Batak Toba language rather than using their own ethnic language, this can be seen when someone asking someone else about something in Pakpaknese; someone prefers to response by using Batak Toba language to response by using Pakpaknese language.

Situation 1 (The conversation made by two women living neighborhood who are the same

Pakpak with the inter-ethnic marriage)

Berru Banurea: Berru Lembeng,,lot ngo jelma I roh mi pesta I we? (Pakpkanese)

/Berru Lembeng,,,banyak nya orang datang ke pesta itu tadi? (Indonesian)

Berru Lembeng: lumayan ma godang na nian,(Batak Toba) /lumayan banyak lah (Indonesia)

Berru Banurea: En mo oda kettoh we, lalap pellin merpestai sambing kidah jelma en, kepeng lako mendahi poda lot? (Pakpaknese Language)

/Aku enggak mengerti lah, terus aja ada pesta, sudah uang pun enggak ada (Indonesian Language)

Berru Lembeng: So hubotoi…(Pakpaknese)/entah lah (Indonesian)

The two women are Pakpaknese people, however the second speaker more interested to respond the first speaker by using Batak Toba though the first speaker keeps talking in Pakpak. From this conversation above can be assumed that the second speaker has disloyalty to her ethnic language. The second speaker has tendency to use other language namely Batak Toba to respon a certain language, Pakpak. This phenomenon refers to lack of awareness of speaker to their language survival.

(22)

Situation 2 (A conversation between husband and wife having inter-ethnic marriage at

home)

Husband : Ise ndai kitaruhken togu-togu roh en ma’e? (Pakpak)

(siapa tadi yang mengantar togu-togu ro ini mak’e?) (Indonesian) Wife : Sihotang nakking (Tobanese)/Sihotang tadi (Indonesian)

Husband : Ise mo laus kita mi pesta i? (Pakpak)/siapa lah dari kita berdua yang pergi ke pesta itu (Indonesian)

Wife : Bapak ma lao ateh!,,(Batak Toba)/Bapak lah yang pergi ya! (Indonesian)

Husband : I pe taho,,baen ma iddahan tai nungga male au (Batak Toba)/baiklah,,makan lah kita, aku sudah lapar (Indonesian)

(Husband; merga Mataniari, wife; berru Sipahutar). For the first time husband makes effort to talk Pakpaknese however her wife keeps answering by using Batak Toba, and then her husband also speaks in Batak Toba. From the conversation made by the couple above shows that husband shifts using Batak Toba language namely his wife language. This phenomenon shows that he is not able to preserve his language and even affected to use his couple language. On the other hand, this also shows that the husband dominantly speak his couple language or has more frequency speak Batak Toba language at home domain.

Sneddon (2003) says that the pressure of Indonesian language as the official language is very great and leads their endangerments to other languages. Indonesian language is the most-spoken language as it is official and national language in Indonesia and so is Batak Toba language in Sumbul Pegagan. It means that Batak Toba language as the local language in Sumbul has the great influence to the endangerment of Pakpkanese language. It implies that the speakers’ loyalty to their ethnic language is being challenged. Moreover, Musgrave (2009) states

(23)

that using the national or local language could be viewed as a mark of good citizenship. It implies that there is a high pressure to use Batak Toba language as local language and as a mark of good citizen in Sumbul Pegagan and as the effect of it is decreasing the use of Pakpaknese ethnic language.

To this, there are two indications of Pakpaknese ethnic language usage can be taken into consideration; when they have high loyalty to their ethnic language, it means they maintain their ethnic language but when their attitude shows negative or less respectful to their ethnic language, it means their language may be altered by another one.

Moreover, there is a lack of eagerness from the children or students of Pakpak generation at school age to use Pakpaknese ethnic language in their interaction, for instance in some schools in Sumbul Pegagan, the students disagree to use Pakpaknese ethnic language because it will constrain their knowledge, difficult to reach the development or progress in education and use Pakpaknese will only limit their perception on regionalism which lead to disintegration, so this can consider that they have less positive attitude to Pakpaknese ethnic language, whereas attitudes are crucial in language growth or decay (Batang, 2010). Consequently, to make sure the language or ethnic language is maintained, it is needed to have positive attitude from its own speakers.

Furthermore, parents seldom guide their children to speak Pakpaknese ethnic language in their family and they more feel proud when their children are able to other language especially speak Indonesian or foreign language fluently since the beginning or early age. At school, starts from kindergarten (TK), Primary School (SD), Junior and Senior High School to University

(24)

level, the students use Indonesian language dominantly in their interaction and learn foreign language eagerly and dominantly compared to Pakpaknese ethnic language.

In addition, Sumbul Pegagan is dominantly populated by Batak Toba. It allows choosing any code or variety in social interactions. These choices may have potential longer-term effects on the language existing in a community namely Pakpaknese ethnic language. Nowadays, there is an indication that Pakpaknese ethnic language is sidelined from Pakpaknese community daily life especially from its young generation due to young speakers are easy to adopt or apply new things, and Pakpaknese ethnic language is signaled unable to fulfill the need of its speaker for the life in a nation.

The above description is about behavior of Pakpaknese community especially inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language which it is assumed that attitude is one of the factors contributes to do so. Though Pakpaknese ethnic language is an important identity to determine a certain ethnic group, seems it is not always can be maintained, but it does not mean that Pakpaknese ethnic language must be left behind. Pakpaknese ethnic language precisely need to be made useful and maximized in use in order not to be shifted or lost.

Having strong and fast social change, it is going to be better and it is also as a significant effort if maintenance of Pakpaknese ethnic language by its speakers in Sumbul Pegagan is enforced. Zulfadli (2010) in Fakhrurrazi thesis states that Acehnenese ethnic language maintenance is positive initiative by using Acehnese ethnic language to a better continuity in the future, since language is a vital part of the development and expression of identity (Oriyama: 2010). In addition, Pakpaknese ethnic language is the identity for Pakpaknese people; Holmes (2001: 61) states that language is an important symbol of a certain ethnic group.

(25)

The writer is inspired from Fakhrurrazi thesis (2010) which conducts research to Acehnese young people in Langsa, the research result acquired is the Acehnese young people have the positive attitude towards their vernacular language through some contributions presented by some sides, such as parents, environments, neighbors, and the members of family at home domain. Suggestions recommended in Fakhrurrazi thesis can give the great contribution to the writer of this research if the writer finally finds out the result of this research is negative in which has potency to shift Pakpaknese ethnic language, by the recommendations given by Fakhrurrazi in his thesis can prevent or avoid Pakpaknese ethnic language from shift, whereas if the result of this research is positive, then it can strengthen the previous result of research in order to be able to preserve the language.

The core for over all explanations above is Pakpaknese people having inter-marriage tend to use their couple’ language, namely Batak Toba language. In some occasions, the writer captures some moments in which the couple of inter-ethnic marriage namely Pakpaknese people with Batak Toba people even never use their ethnic language but use couple’s language all the time. Based on the conditions described above, the writer is interested in conducting her research relates to the language attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their own ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan.

The writer herself determines Sumbul Pegagan as the location of her research as Sumbul Pegagan shows the most phenomenons of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people among other locations in Kecamatan Sumbul. Besides that, Pakpaknese ethnic consisting of many sub-ethnics however the writer determines Pakpak Pegagan only as the subject of this research as in which the writer lives most dominated by Pakpak Pegagan among other sub-ethnics of Pakpaknese. In addition, the writer determines subject of her research as inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak people

(26)

and Batak Toba people, Pakpak people and Simalungun are the most phenomenon found in the location of the research conducted.

1.2Formulation of Problems

Based on the background of the study, the problems are formulated as the followings: (1) What are the language attitudes of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people toward their

own ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan?

(2) How is the language attitude realization of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their own ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan?

(3) Why do they hold the attitude such the way it is? 1.3Objectives of the Study

In relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of this research are:

(1) to elaborate the attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language.

(2) to describe attitude realization of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language.

(3) to describe the reasons why the inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people have the attitude just the way it is.

1.4Scope of the Study

This study will focus on the occurrence of Pakpaknese language attitude; factors affect the language attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpaknese people towards their ethnic language, the effect of language attitude among Pakpaknese speakers in Sumbul Pegagan. Sumbul Pegagan

(27)

is a large area which consists of 15 sub-Districts with total of household is 14.578 households from the population are 38.290 people.

1.5Significances of the Study

(1) Findings of the study are expected to be useful and relevant theoretically and practically. (2) Theoretically, the findings of the study are expected to justify or to refuse theories of

language attitude. The findings of this research are going to justify or refuse the theories relates with language attitude of people having inter-ethnic marriage where the phenomenon of inter-ethnic marriage will show whether it affects the other customs, culture and also language maintenance of someone having inter-ethnic marriage or doesn’t affect at all to customs, culture and especially to certain language maintenance. (3) In addition, the findings are expected to add more horizons in language planning issues

can give contributions to governments in maintaining language through education curriculum such as language cultural learning at society environment.

(4) Practically, the findings are expected to awaken awareness of Pakpaknese speakers in multilingual contexts. In addition, the findings are expected to be relevant and useful to language planners, language practitioners (linguists) and related institutions in efforts to maintain endangered languages by conducting programs through organization intending to give guidances to society the importance of maintaning the ethnic language as typical identity.

(28)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Conclusion

The study concerned on the attitude of inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak people towards their ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan. The aim of the study is to describe how the attitude of inter-ethnic Pakpaknese people towards their inter-ethnic marriage. After deliberately analyzing the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:

1. The informants show negative attitude and negative attitude towards Pakpaknese ethnic language in Sumbul Pegagan. There are 56.25 % informants show negative attitude and 43.75 % informants show positive attitude.

2. The realization of negative attitude they have is by not having eagerness to keep using Pakpaknese ethnic language with their couple and children at home in their living state. However, they still use their own ethnic language at the certain domain namely when they come back and communicate with their family; father, mother, siblings, and cousins.

3. The negative attitude shown by informants is because the less frequency of Pakpaknese ethnic language use in their daily communication such as at home when communication with their couple and children. On the other word, they have the more frequency in using other language which is considered as the medium of communication making them easily accepted in their current environment and more easily ‘get in’ on their couples’ scope life.

(29)

5.2 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusion, the following are suggested:

1. It is suggested that inter-ethnic Pakpak people should have positive attitude towards their own ethnic language in themselves of every individual, by keep using Pakpaknese ethnic language in their daily communication not only when talking to their parents, siblings and cousins but also to their couple. In this case, it is expected inter-ethnic Pakpak can keep maintaining their ethnic language by equalizing their ethnic language and their couple’ language, this case can be realized by using Pakpakese ethnic language when attending Pakpaknese cultural ceremonies and communicating in Pakpaknese ethnic langauge, communicating in Pakpaknese ethnic language when meeting their (Pakpakese) big family.

2. It is suggested that language supervisor agency and the local government; head of districts, head of villages should apply a program of revising, revitalizing and maintaining Pakpaknese ethnic language shift to keep its maintenance by conducting the cultural events or cultural festival which empower and compete Pakpak family, inter-ethnic marriage Pakpak people which maximizes the existence of Pakpaknese inter-ethnic language by conducting the traditional language itself such as theatre exhibition, musical exhibition, the competition of creating the greeting or opening of cultural ceremonies in Pakpaknese language, etc which can be conducted in memorial days such as independent day, and other celebration days. In addition, it is also suggested to other researchers to be more concerned on the research about Pakpaknese ethnic language maintenance and development.

(30)

REFERENCES

Alford, B. and Beck, A. 1998. The integrative power of cognitive therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Anderbeck, K.L 2010. Language Use and Attitude Among the Jambi Malays of Sumatra. SIL Internasional.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Dairi. 2014

Bagozzi, R. 1992. The Self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 55, 178-204

Bogdan, R. C, & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research For Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bogman, Robert C. and Biklen. Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: In

Introduction to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitude and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

Boyet L. Batang. 2010. Language Learning Attitudes of Selected Public and Private

Secondary English Teachers in the Philippines. Philipines: Isabela State University.

Batang. 2010. A Social Psychology of Language. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 40, 130 145.

Batubara, Asni Juliana. 2010. The Maintenance of Bahasa Mandailing in Medan Tembung. M Medan: Unpublished Thesis

Bayer, Jenifer Marie. 2005. Sociolinguistic Perspectives of Culture in Translation Indian Tribal

Situation Language in India…accessed on25th_{February. http://www.} _{Language in}

india.

Becker, Gary S. 1974. A Theory of Marriage. Economic of the Family: Marriage, Children,

and Human Capital. Edited by Theodore W. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press: 299 – 344.

Benjamin, John. 2003 Language death and language maintenance. The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publisihng.

Bernard, H. Russell. 1992. Preserving Language Diversity: Human Organization. Berlin: Mouton de Grayter.

Beer, W. and Jacob J. 1985. Language Policy and language unity. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowan and Allen held Publishers.

Cavallaro, Francesco. 2003. Language Maintenance Revisited: An Australian Perspective.

Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 29, 561-582

Creswell. J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, AC: Sage.

Criper, C. and Widdowson H.G. “Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching” in J.P.B. Allen and S. Piet Corder (ed) 1975:156.

Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: University Press.

Day, R. 1985. The Ultimate Inequality: Linguistics Genocide. Berlin: Mouton

Dittmar, N. 1976. Sociolinguistics: A Crytical Survey of Theory and Application. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.

(31)

Dressler. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society, Acceleration, Retardation, and Reversal in

Language Decay. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

D’jam’an, S. 2009. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Duan, L. (2004). A Sociolinguistics Study of Language Use and Language Attitude Among the Bai People in Jianchuan Country, China. SIL International

Edward, J. 2009. Language and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fakhurrazi. 2013. Attitude of Indigenous Acehnese People Towards Their Vernacular

Maintenance in Langsa. Medan; Unpublished Thesis.

Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ferguson, C. A. and J. J. Gumperz. 1960. Linguistics Diversity in South Asia in Regional,

Social, an Functional Variation. Blomington: Indiana University Press.

Fishman, J. A. 1970. Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowly – Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. A. 1976. “The Relationship between Micro and Macro Sociolinguistics in the Study

Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When” in Pride and Holmes (Ed) 1976: 15-32.

Fishman, J. A. 1991. Language Spread and Language Policy for Endangered Language.

Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1996. Language Loyalty in The United States: The Maintenance and P

Perpetuation of Non- English Mother Tongues by American Ethic and Religion

Groups. London: The Hague Mounton.

Fishman, J. A. 1972b. “The Description of Societal Bilingualism” in Anwar S Dill (Ed). 1972. Garvin, P.L. and Mathiot M. 1968. “The Urbanization of The Guarani Language: Problem in

Language and Culture” in Fishman (Ed). 1968.

Gibson, Ferguson. 2006. Language Planning and Education. Great Britain: E Edinburgh University Press

Geertz, C. 1976. “Linguistics Etiquette” in Pride and Holmes (Ed). 1976.

Gomaa, Yasser A. 2011. Language Maintenance and Transmission: The Case of Egyptian Arabic in Durham, UK. International Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 1, 46-53

Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Hornberger, N. H. and Molina, Serafin, M. C. Quechua Language Shift, Maintenance, and Revitalization in the Andes: the case for language planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Vol. 167, 9-67

Hoffman, C. 1991. An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman.

Iskandar, 2008. Sikap Siswa SMA terhadap Penggunaan Bahasa Aceh dalam Keluarga. Banda Aceh: Serambi Indonesia

Janse. 2003. Language Dead and Language Maintenance. Journal of Sociolinguistics Issues, Vol.20: 66 – 81.

Kaban, Susiana, 2011. Karo Language Shift in Medan: Unpublished Thesis

(32)

Lambert. W. E. 1976. A Psychology of Bilingualism” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 23: 91- 109.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage Publication.

Loveday, Lambert. 1982. The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a non- native

Language: Oxford: Pergamon Press

Lazarus, A. 1991. Cognition and Motivation in Emotion. American Psychologist, Vol.46,352 367.

Lieberson, 1984. Langauge Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change: Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Mukhuba, T.T. 2000. Bilingualism, Language Attitudes, Language Policy and Language Planning: A Sociolinguistics Perspective: Journal of Language Learning, vol.3, 268 278.

Mark, Janse. 2003. Langauge Death and Language Maintenance. Theoretical, Practical and

Descriptive Approaches. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

Musgrave, Simon. 2009. Language Shift and Language Maintenance in Indonesia. International Journal of The Sociology of Language; 1-17.

Matthew, B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman, 1994. An Expended Source Book, Qualitative

Data Analysis. International Education and Professional Publisher. London.

Marti, Felix. 2005. Words and World: World Language Review. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Mathias, Brenzinger. 2003. Contribution to the UNESCO encyclopedia of life support system (EOLSS). Documenting Endangered Languages and Language Maintenance. Japan. Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

Mora, M.T. 2005. Language Maintenance Among The Children Immigrants: A Comparison of Border State with other Regions of the U.S. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, vol.24, 127-144.

Martin, Mario Daniel. 1998. Social and Linguistics Consequence of Languages other than

English and Spanish in Spanish Speaking Community. Griffith University Press.

Nararuddin. 2010. Bahasa Langkat Maintenance. Parents’ Role in Maintaining Bahasa

Langkat in Stabat. Medan: Unpublished Thesis.

Nawaz, Sana. 2012. Language Shift: An Analysis of Factors Involved in Language Shift. Global Journal of Human Social Science Linguistics & Education, vol. 12, 72-80.

Natasha, Mack. 2005. Qualitative Research Method. A Data Collector’s Field Guide. USA: Family Health International.

Nancy, H. Hornberger. 2004. Quechua Language Shift, Maintenance, and Revitalization in the Andes: The Case for Language Planning. International Journal of the Sociology o Language, vol. 167, 9-67.

Oriyama, Kaya. 2010. Heritage Language Maintenance and Japanese Identity Formation: What Role Can Schooling and Ethnic Community Contact Play?. Heritage Language Journal, vol. 7, 76-111.

Obierro, O. J. 2010. From Assessing Language Endangerment or Vitality to Creating and Evaluating Language Revitalization Programmes. Nordic Journal of African Studies, vol. 4, 201-226.

(33)

Romaine, Suzanne. 1994. Language in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rajend, Mesthrie. 2012. Introducing Sociolinguistics. 22 George Square, Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Ramzan, Muhammad. 2012.Language Shift: An Analysis of Factors Involved in Language Shift. Global Journal of Human Social Science Linguistics & Education, vol. 12, 72 80.

Seidman, Irving. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: a Guide for Researchers in

Education. New York: Teachers College University Press.

Sneddon, James. 2003. The Indonesian Language, its History and Role in Modern Society. Australia: University of New South Wales Press.

Siahaan, Rumondang. 2000. Kajian Kasus Tentang Tingkat Pemertahan Bahasa Pada

Masyarakat Batak Toba Berdasarkan Perilaku Pilih Bahasa. Medan: Unpublished

Thesis.

Yusri, Ghazali. 2011. Attitude Towards Oral Arabic Among Students in Different Learning Environments. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, vol. 33, 37-44.

Zhang, Donghui. 2008. Between Two Generation Language Maintenance and Acculturation

Among Chinese Immigrant Families. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

(1)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1 Conclusion

(2)

5.2 Suggestions

In relation to the conclusion, the following are suggested:

(3)

REFERENCES

Alford, B. and Beck, A. 1998. The integrative power of cognitive therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Anderbeck, K.L 2010. Language Use and Attitude Among the Jambi Malays of Sumatra. SIL Internasional.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Kabupaten Dairi. 2014

Bagozzi, R. 1992. The Self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 55, 178-204

Bogdan, R. C, & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research For Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bogman, Robert C. and Biklen. Sari Knopp. 1992. Qualitative Research for Education: In Introduction to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitude and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual matters.

Boyet L. Batang. 2010. Language Learning Attitudes of Selected Public and Private Secondary English Teachers in the Philippines. Philipines: Isabela State University. Batang. 2010. A Social Psychology of Language. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 40, 130

145.

Batubara, Asni Juliana. 2010. The Maintenance of Bahasa Mandailing in Medan Tembung. M Medan: Unpublished Thesis

Bayer, Jenifer Marie. 2005. Sociolinguistic Perspectives of Culture in Translation Indian Tribal Situation Language in India…accessed on25th_February._http://www_. _{Language in} india.

Becker, Gary S. 1974. A Theory of Marriage. Economic of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital. Edited by Theodore W. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 299 – 344.

Benjamin, John. 2003 Language death and language maintenance. The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publisihng.

Bernard, H. Russell. 1992. Preserving Language Diversity: Human Organization. Berlin: Mouton de Grayter.

Beer, W. and Jacob J. 1985. Language Policy and language unity. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowan and Allen held Publishers.

Cavallaro, Francesco. 2003. Language Maintenance Revisited: An Australian Perspective. Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 29, 561-582

Creswell. J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, AC: Sage.

Criper, C. and Widdowson H.G. “Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching” in J.P.B. Allen and S. Piet Corder (ed) 1975:156.

Crystal, David. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: University Press.

Day, R. 1985. The Ultimate Inequality: Linguistics Genocide. Berlin: Mouton

Dittmar, N. 1976. Sociolinguistics: A Crytical Survey of Theory and Application. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.

(4)

Dressler. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society, Acceleration, Retardation, and Reversal in Language Decay. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

D’jam’an, S. 2009. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Duan, L. (2004). A Sociolinguistics Study of Language Use and Language Attitude Among the Bai People in Jianchuan Country, China. SIL International

Edward, J. 2009. Language and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fakhurrazi. 2013. Attitude of Indigenous Acehnese People Towards Their Vernacular Maintenance in Langsa. Medan; Unpublished Thesis.

Fasold, R. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ferguson, C. A. and J. J. Gumperz. 1960. Linguistics Diversity in South Asia in Regional, Social, an Functional Variation. Blomington: Indiana University Press.

Fishman, J. A. 1970. Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowly – Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Fishman, J. A. 1976. “The Relationship between Micro and Macro Sociolinguistics in the Study Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When” in Pride and Holmes (Ed) 1976: 15-32. Fishman, J. A. 1991. Language Spread and Language Policy for Endangered Language.

Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Fishman, Joshua A. 1996. Language Loyalty in The United States: The Maintenance and P Perpetuation of Non- English Mother Tongues by American Ethic and Religion Groups. London: The Hague Mounton.