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
and Batak Toba people, Pakpak people and Simalungun are the most phenomenon found in the location of the research conducted.
1.2 Formulation 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?
1.3 Objectives 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.
1.4 Scope 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
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.
1.5 Significances 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.
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 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.
83
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 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.
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 on25
th
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.
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 Kantor Pencatatan Sipil Kecamatan Sumbul Pegagan. Kabupaten Dairi – Sidikalang. 2014
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.