Content uploaded by Zane Goebel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zane Goebel on Jan 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ZANE GOEBEL
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia
This paper focuses on the role of institutions and everyday talk in the building
of associations between language, region, ethnicity and class in Indonesia.1 In
particular, I am interested in exploring how institutions have contributed to the
reproduction of language ideologies that link ethnicity and class with language
variety. While I argue that institutional activities have helped – often uninten-
tionally – to associate region with language to the extent that both are equated
with ethnicity or ethnic identity, these associations do not fully account for the
patterns of language use at the local level. I support this argument using data
from inter-ethnic conversations in two urban neighbourhoods of Java where
talk is in fact carried out in a variety of Javanese rather than in Indonesian. In
itself, this raises doubts about the link between language and ethnicity in this
Indonesian context. The question remains how to account for such usage.
certain identities available for Indonesians to use in conversation. Secondly, I
argue that this process of appropriation in situated interaction needs to take
into account how such associations might relate to the conditions of produc-
tion of this talk, which in this context point to the relevance of a class-based
of language use encountered in these two neighbourhoods by looking at:
1 the Indonesian state’s influence on community formation,
2 income levels and their relationship to both community formation and
daily social life in these communities, and
3 the daily lives of the individuals.
1 I would like to express my thanks to the members of both Semarang neighbourhoods for their
time, friendship and patience during the two-and-a-half years that I lived with them. Although
I cannot name them here, I acknowledge and thank my research assistants, most of whom lived
in these neighbourhoods and whose talk often became my data. I also thank Paul Black and two
anonymous reviewers for their very valuable feedback which has helped me refine my ideas. Of
course, all errors and omissions are mine.
Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (BKI) 164-1 (2008):69-101
© 2008 Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
is Associate Professor of Sociolinguistics at the Graduate School of Letters, Na-
goya University. He holds a PhD from Northern Territory University. His research interests are
linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. He is the author of ‘Code choice in interethnic inter-
actions in two urban neighborhoods of Central Java, Indonesia’, International Journal of the Socio-
log y of Language 158, 2002, pp. 69-87, and ‘Enregisterment and appropriation in Javanese-Indone-
sian bilingual talk’, Language in Society 36, 2007, pp. 511-31. Professor Goebel may be contacted at
goebelz@lit.nagoya-u.ac.jp.
Zane Goebel70
Exploring structure and action
In this section I argue for a fluid approach to language, society and culture
that allows us to tease out some of the complex inter-relationships that exist
between them. In sociological terms this is a question of the relationship be-
tween action and social structure. While such a relationship has long been the
concern of social theorists, the focus of sociologists (Goffman 1983; Giddens
1984; Bourdieu 1984) and sociolinguists (Heller 1988; Milroy and Milroy 1992;
Carter and Sealy 2000; Coupland, Sarangi and Candlin 2001) has increasingly
come to be on the inter-related nature of action and social structure.
determine ways of speaking but merely provide a repertoire of informa-
practices over space and time can relate to the formation of social systems
insights into how such routine social practices relate to language use and to
habitus that can be used by
others to identify a speaker of a certain variety as a member of a particular
group.
Some sociolinguists have synthesized these theories, as can be seen in the
work on language and social networks (Milroy 2002; Milroy and Gordon 2003;
and Ochs 1986). For example, Milroy and Milroy (1992) suggest that docu-
menting a person’s social networks, gathering data on their use of phonologi-
cal variables, the correlation of these two data sets, and subsequent compari-
sons with other data (gathered and analysed using these processes) allows
insights into how classes are formed and reproduced and how this relates to
-
tionships between action and social structure have demonstrated the links
between situated language use, learning and cultural reproduction in small
communities. For example, Ochs (1996:408) argues that:
[L]anguage practices are socially organized and […], as novices recurrently engage
in these practices with more expert members of society, they develop an under-
standing of social actions, events, emotions, aesthetics, knowledgeability, statuses,
relationships, and other socio-cultural phenomena.
From this perspective we can see the inter-related nature of interaction, so-
cial structure, and social reproduction, especially as it relates to how novices
develop an ‘understanding’ of the rules of interaction. The way in which ‘un-
derstanding’ has been conceptualized in this type of research is in terms of
indexicalization.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 71
A basic tenet of language socialization research is that socialization is in part a process
of assigning situational, i.e. indexical, meanings (for example temporal, spatial, social
identity, social act, social activity, affective or epistemic meanings) to particular
forms (interrogative forms, diminutive affixes, raised pitch and the like) […]. To in-
dex is to point to the presence of some entity in the immediate situation-at-hand. In
language, an index is considered to be a linguistic form that performs this function.
[…] A linguistic index is usually a structure (for example sentential voice, emphatic
stress, diminutive affix) that is used variably from one situation to another and be-
comes conventionally associated with particular situational dimensions such that
when that structure is used, the form invokes those situational dimensions. (Ochs
1996:410-1.)
The perspective that people learn and reproduce identities and social groups
through social practice has also been developed by a number of ethnographers
of education (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). More recently the role of
social practice and language in the production and reproduction of commu-
nities has been explored by sociolinguists (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992;
Eckert 2000; Barton and Tusting 2005). In both educational and sociolinguistic
perspectives participants’ ongoing social interaction and its outcomes are de-
scribed as communities of practice. In such communities of practice the mean-
ings of particular linguistic forms and other meaning-making resources are
negotiated in situated interaction. In cases where there are recurring interac-
tions involving similar groups of participants, linguistic forms can be reified
to the extent that they become part of recognizable patterns of language use
or styles (Eckert 2000). In other words, such styles are indexed to particular
persons or groups.
For scholars of language ideology such local-level processes enable lan-
guage users to make and interpret distinctions between groups of people based
upon their language use (Irvine and Gal 2000; Irvine 2001; Bucholtz and Hall
2004). In cases where groups of speakers of one variety come from a privileged,
elite or powerful position, their variety can become standardized (Agha 2003).
This process, referred to by Agha as ‘enregisterment’, relies on the existence of
metadiscourses about language use that might initially be found in dictionaries
and prescriptive grammars, and then later in more widely accessible books on
-
habitually speak a certain variety of a language (Agha 2003:242).
individuals’ access to or participation in speech chains and the demographic
makeup of those involved in these speech chains. Essentially these speech
chains consist of a speech event containing the type of metadiscourses noted
above along with senders and receivers (which can be individuals or groups
-
Zane Goebel72
-
lations: thus while many people may understand a certain variety of language
as well as be aware of its relationship with certain types of social structures
and social characteristics, far fewer people will be competent in speaking such
a variety (Agha 2003:260). The extent to which a population share and pass
on ideas about the cultural value of a particular language variety depends
not only on their exposure to such a variety, but also on their willingness to
identify with and to use such a culturally valued language variety in their own
interactions (Agha 2003:243-4). Such a process is assisted when the cultural
value of a certain language variety is given authority or legitimized through
public schools, as has been the case in Britain (Agha 2003:260-5).
More generally the involvement of institutions can be seen as acts – inten-
tional or unintentional – of ‘authorization’ in relation to particular language
varieties (Bucholtz and Hall 2004:386-7). That is to say, institutional involve-
but also in their legitimization. Such processes also produce competing ideolo-
either style or a register2 relies upon their coexistence with other styles and
registers within a system (Bucholtz and Hall 2004; Irvine 2001; Agha 2003). As
such, processes of style reproduction or ‘enstylement’ and enregisterment play
a role in the reproduction of other competing language ideologies that may
also help ‘denaturalize’ or deconstruct dominant language ideologies (Bucholtz
in new mixed varieties or new codes being associated with new identities,
both situated and more enduring (Alvarez-Cáccamo 1998; Franceschini 1998;
Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985; Meeuwis and Blommaert 1998; Oesch-Serra
1998; Wortham 2005).
In addition to representing new varieties associated with a particular com-
munity of practice, these new varieties along with other enstyled and enreg-
istered varieties represent resources or ‘constituting possibilities’ (Mäkitalo
and Säljö 2002:63). In this respect I am also aligning my discussion with other
dimensions of action-structure relationships whereby participants can use
their knowledge of such relationships to appropriate and recontextualize
language varieties in situated interaction (Bakhtin 1981; Bauman and Briggs
interaction in such a way that situationally changes participant identities
(Irvine 2001).
-
tion’. ‘Styling the other’ is roughly a situation where:
2 I see the major difference between the two terms being related to the local in the case of style
and the more widespread in the case of register.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 73
[P]eople use language to index social group affiliations in situations where the ac-
ceptability and legitimacy of their doing so is open to question, incontrovertibly
guaranteed neither by ties of inheritance, ingroup socialization, nor by any other
language ideology (Rampton 1999:422).
While styling the other and adequation both relate to the pursuit of sameness
(Bucholtz and Hall 2004), adequation is more appropriate for categorizing
those who by way of in-group socialization learn and habitually use a lan-
guage that mainstream language ideologies about race and ethnicity would
not normally associate with that person (Skapoulli 2004; Bucholtz and Hall
2004; Sweetland 2002). Those who engage in adequation are seen as authentic,
legitimate and authorized users of the language from the viewpoint of those
whose language is being ‘borrowed’. Often this is because they also share so-
cial spaces, economic circumstances, and interactional histories (Sweetland
2002). In this sense, we can question essentialist claims relating to the exist- In this sense, we can question essentialist claims relating to the exist-
ence of fixed or enduring one-to-one relationships between language variety
and identity to argue that identity is often situated (Antaki and Widdicombe
1998; Auer 1995; Li Wei 2002; Sebba and Wootton 1998).
Having moved a number of times between an agentive and structural
position, I should note that we also need to understand the role of states
and institutions in the routinization and ‘naturalization’ of social practices
(Bourdieu 1994). In other words, we need to understand whether and to what
extent the state plays a role in creating social structures and the conditions
of production which put people in certain situations to begin with (Bourdieu
1994:13; Carter and Sealy 2000). What the discussion thus far points to is
-
tive’ (Gubrium and Holstein 1997:119).
According to Gubrium and Holstein (1997:119), teasing out the complex
relationships between social action and social structure requires the use of
multiple approaches in a way that doesn’t privilege or present one approach
as providing the reality. Rather, it is seen as just one of many possible reali-
ties. For example, ethnographically recoverable information about social
structures at national, regional and local levels provides participants and
researchers alike with resources for interpretation (Gubrium and Holstein
1997:205). The use of approaches to situated discourse, such as conversation
analysis or interactional sociolinguistics to look at (inter)action, allows both
participants and analysts to see how these structures are used in face-to-face
interaction. Moreover, examining the conditions bearing on the production of
in situated interaction (Gubrium and Holstein 1997:198; Stroud 1998).
rukun tetangga
Zane Goebel74
(RT) ‘neighbourhoods’ in Semarang, Central Java over a period of two-and-half
years from April 1996 to July 1998. With my spouse we rented a house in one
of these neighbourhoods that I will call RT08. With the help of my spouse and
a number of Indonesian research assistants, we observed and audio-recorded
the conversations of around half of the members of RT08 and adjoining RT05 in
of recordings. These were subsequently transcribed with the help of Indonesian
research assistants and participants of the interactions, and by using Javanese
and Indonesian dictionaries (Prawiroatmodjo 1989, 1993; Echols and Shadily
1992; Robson and Wibisono 2002). Analysis and interpretation of the talk in
these recordings was initially carried out using conversation analysis. I then
continued this process by: 1. comparing these conversations with others made
in both of these neighbourhoods, 2. observing and recording social interaction
in these two neighbourhoods, 3. formal and informal interviews with par-
ticipants and their neighbours, 4. post-recording interviews with participants
using transcripts of the talk as stimulus for discussions about language use,
3
Ethnicity, class and language in Indonesia
Much scholarly attention has focused on the origins of ethnicity and its rela-
tionship with region in Indonesia (Steedly 1996; Smith-Hefner 1989; Errington
2001), subsequent inter-ethnic relations (Bertrand 2004; Bruner 1974; Chua 2004;
Hoey 2003; Lenhart 1997; Hoshour 1997), and pluralism more generally (Hefner
2001; Hoon 2006; Schefold 1998). What seems clear from these discussions is
that many political initiatives tended to focus on language as related to region
and ultimately to ethnic identity in some form or another. In doing so, ethnicity
was essentialized and authorized as a resource for use in public discourse and
private talk. Moreover, there were many cases where ethnic categories were
by-products or unintended consequences of complex historical, political, and
social forces related to processes of imagining allies and enemies. What is less
clear is how such categories and their ideological associations with language
varieties have been maintained. In this section I draw upon the concept of en-
registerment to suggest that the link between language and ethnicity has been
reproduced in Indonesia through the education system and the media.
I should start this exploration by pointing out that the most obvious case
of enregisterment is the propagation of Indonesian as the national language.
A number of scholars have pointed out the ideological dimensions of lan-
guage planning in Indonesia which, they argue, was based upon western
models of development, nationalism, and national identity where relation-
3 For a more detailed explanation of my research methodology, see Goebel 2000.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 75
ships between territory and language were assumed (Errington 1998a, 1998b,
2000; Heryanto 2007). Such accounts highlight the fact that there were no
native speakers of Indonesian, and therefore the types of social personas
enregistered with Indonesian were less related to ethnic categories of people
than to those who were educated, development minded, authoritative, and
privileged (Errington 1998b; Hooker 1993).
What is missing from these accounts is the observation that the act of insti-
tutionalizing Indonesian as a language of wider communication, education,
and social mobility also helped reproduce us–them distinctions. That is to
say, this process helped imagine another category, namely the ‘ethnic other’,
as someone who requires or is spoken to in Indonesian. This process was
also helped through constitutionally sanctioned language policies relating to
the need to preserve regional languages (Anwar 1980:137). While ideological
links between language, region and ethnicity are obvious from this stand-
point, they will be much less obvious to Indonesian children going to school
experiences with languages other than Indonesian (LOTI) and varieties of
Indonesian, the labelling processes that go with teaching, textbooks, and
timetabled subjects will contribute to their understanding of language as a
named object and as a marker of ethnic identity.4
For example, where Indonesian is portrayed as the language of unity and
communication among geographically dispersed ethnic groups with their
between ‘us’ as a LOTI-speaking group and ‘them’ as a stranger or ‘ethnic
other’ requiring Indonesian. To summarize, we can say that children’s expo-
sure to such discourses enregisters LOTI and Indonesian with ethnic identity
as part of a constitutionally sanctioned language-maintenance programme.
Mass media also contribute to the reproduction of links between language
variety, class and ethnicity. For example, serials, dramas about old kingdoms,
and ‘traditional’ performances (such as wayang) broadcast at provincial and
national level that show regional languages and symbols tying the speakers of
these languages to particular regions also contribute to the process of reproduc-
ing associations between language, region and ethnicity. Consider Extract 1,
drawn from an episode titled Cipoa ‘Con artist’ of a series called None ‘Missy’,
broadcast nationally in 1995 by the state-owned television station TPI.
the exchange (lines 1-15) Dewi sees the older male taxi driver in the street and
they realize that they know each other. Dewi then runs down the steps while
smiling and calling out to greet him. At this stage I should also point out that
4 For a related discussion, see Lowenberg 1990; Nababan 1991.
Zane Goebel76
I use the following transcription conventions: Indonesian is in normal font,
LOTI in bold, and bold italics
a LOTI or Indonesian.
Extract 1.
1
2
Ada orangnya nggak sih di situ?
Heh!
Is anyone there or not?
Heh!
3 Dewi
4 Ada orangnya nggak di situ? Is anyone there or not?
5 Dewi Ada.
6 Panggil, eh ada uang kecil nggak? Call [the house owner] eh, haven’t
got any change [have you]?4
7 Ha? ada kamar kecil, ada tu di
dalam, masuk aja
What? Is there a bathroom, yeah,
there is one inside, just come
inside.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Waduh oh my god bagus juga ini
rumah ya ya tapi mesti diganti lagi
sama barang-barang yang lebih
trendi saya sih nggak suka sama
warna warna kayak gini kurang
aktif ya kita kan artis mesti glamor
gitu dong eh tolong dibayarin
taksi dulu itu tu yang di luar ya
Wow, oh my god this house is
great, yeah. But [we] need to
change some of the things (fur-
nishings) with more trendy ones.
If it’s [me] I don’t like colours like
this, they are not active enough.
[we] are usually glamorous, right.
one, the one outside, yeah.
18 Neng Dewi Miss Dewi?
19 Mang . Heh . Mang Uncle? Huh! Uncle?
20 Neng Dewi . Neng Miss Dewi. Miss!
21 Mang Mang Mang Uncle Uncle Uncle
22 Ini teh Neng Dewi téa Miss Dewi aren’t you?
23 Ya Mang Yes Uncle.
24
25
26
Euluh euluh euluh mani sudah
besar begini ah . masih inget ka
Mang coba . he.
Gee gee gee wow you’re already
grown up; do [you] still remember
Uncle, try [and remember].
27
28
29
atuh ini teh Mang Mang
kéheula kéheula kéheula kéheula
. Mang … Mang Ucup
of course you [are] Uncle,
Uncle, hang on, hang on, hang
on, hang on, Uncle, Uncle Ucup
30 Wah betul . damang Neng? Wow, right. How are [you] Miss?
31 SAÉ Mang GOOD, Uncle.
4 See the Appendix for an overview of the transcription conventions.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 77
At the national level most Indonesian television viewers will not understand
much of the language used in lines 18 to 31. Even so, they may pick up on
symbols associated with regions within Indonesia, such as number plates on
cars (in this case Mang Ucup’s taxi has a number prefixed with a ‘D’, indicat-
ing it is registered in Bandung, the provincial capital of West Java). Given that
the majority of viewers at the national level would be speakers of a LOTI as a
first language – with such experience including language use in intimate con-
texts – they may also interpret the use of a LOTI language as displaying some
sort of intimacy or solidarity. Thus, for some viewers certain language varie-
ties may be enregistered with region and intimacy, while for other viewers
– especially those who actually speak the language being used – this may also
contribute to the reproduction of such associations. Moreover, when the use
of such language is contrasted with the use of Indonesian in other contexts
17) – then this will strengthen the enregisterment. That is to say, it will offer
clear distinctions between social characters and language use, which in this
case is the Indonesian-using ‘stranger’ or ‘ethnic other’ and the Sundanese-us-
ing ethnic brethren or familiar.
-
ally, help reproduce associations between language variety and identity
(Table 1 summarizes these language ideologies). I have also argued that the
existence of a style or an enregistered variety implies the existence of other
styles and registers. While exposure to schooling and mass media may help
Indonesians recognize ‘we’ and ‘they’ distinctions based on style and register,
it needs to be reiterated that these represent resources to be appropriated or
not in situated interaction. In the following section I look at whether and to
what extent such knowledge is actually used in talk.
relating to language categorization. Firstly, and as maintained through
this paper, categorizing languages as Javanese, Sundanese and so on is an
-
tions of language variety in transcripts were based on the extent to which
they approximated or deviated from standard forms found in dictionaries
(Prawiroatmodjo 1989, 1993; Echols and Shadily 1992) and other descrip-
as either a variety of Javanese or Indonesian. Secondly, the communities-of-
practice framework I adopt here also prevents me from making claims as to
the extent to which the varieties used in situated interaction represent variet-
ies that are common in Semarang. Accordingly, my claims about language
and identity relate only to the two neighbourhoods where I worked.
Zane Goebel78
Table 1. Language ideologies created through processes of enregisterment in Indonesia
Context Languages other than
Indonesian (LOTI)
Indonesian
Inter-ethnic interaction
Unfamiliarity
Out-group relations
Region
Ethnic identity
In-group relations
Family
Intimacy
Familiarity
Conversations among neighbours in Semarang
Here I examine language choice in some female and male conversations that
occurred during monthly RT ‘neighbourhood’ meetings in RT08 and in a card
game in RT05. In these settings I show that patterns of language exchange are
different to what we might expect, given earlier explanations about use of In-
donesian and Javanese. In particular, I show that, often, ngoko Javanese forms,
rather than Indonesian, are used inter-ethnically.
As to the transcription conventions used, in the following transcripts
normal font indicates the local colloquial variety of Indonesian (CI), bold
italics
bold represents ngoko Javanese (NJ). Instead of just using commas to indicate
pauses in speech, I have used a number of conventions for indicating the
use of pause, intonation, and tempo. Familiarity with these conventions will
enhance the reading/understanding of the transcribed texts.5
respectively.6
Extract 2 represents a conversation between people I will call Pak Feizel
and Pak Saryono. Pak Feizel reported being a Banjarese from the island of
5 The meaning-making potential of pause and silence has been demonstrated in the studies of
Gumperz (1982) and Tannen (1984). The study reported here used these techniques to establish
some of the meaning-making potential of pause as used in conversations among the residents of
these two neighbourhoods.
6 These categories are based on how speakers identified themselves in terms of ethnicity, and
how their neighbours identified them. I have changed the names and other identifying informa-
tion of the participants in all of the extracts presented in this paper.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 79
Java. This conversation took place during one of the monthly male neigh-
bourhood meetings, which were forums for the male heads of household
and upkeep of RT infrastructure, social services, and social events (for further
details see Goebel 2000:115-49). This conversation is preceded by a group dis-
building of the new pos kamling ‘guard post’).
Extract 2. Inter-ethnic male talk in an RT08 monthly meeting
Pak Tauk (J)
1
2
3
na semua mbuat berapa lembar
nanti akan di (Pak ??? ???) dapat
(??? ???) #tanda tangan#=
Right [for] all those make up some
pages and later [they] can be
(Pak ??? ???) can (??? ???) be signed.
Pak Feizel (NJ)
4
5
papa lah (.2) { (???)
Ha, just photocopy, no problem,
(???).
Pak Saryono (J)
6
7
8
→kemarin saya dikasih
nomeré Pak punyanya Pak #(???)’#
(.2) yang ngisi:: (.4)
The other day I [was] given the
number [of] Pak, the one owned by
lives in).
Pak Feizel (NJ)
9 → Situmorang, Pak Situmorang?
Pak Saryono (J)
10 →iya { #Situmorang# Yeah Situmorang.
Pak Feizel (NJ)
11
12
13
→
orangnya bagus +dulu+ =
If [we] knew his address [we could]
send [it], Pak Situmorang [would]
pay, he used to be good.
Pak Saryono (J)
14
15
16
→= kasih telponnya hubungi telpon
nggak nganu #nggak ini nyampai#
=
[I was] given his phone number,
[but] couldn’t um, couldn’t get
through.
Pak Feizel (NJ)
17 →= nggak nyambung = Wasn’t connected.
Pak Saryono (J)
18 →= nggak angkat angkat dia’ (1.0) He didn’t pick up [the phone].
Extract 2 is characterized by a heavy use of Indonesian (normal font). Of course
such usage isn’t surprising given that Indonesian is the ideologically prescribed
Zane Goebel80
medium of communication in such ‘inter-ethnic’ conversations.7 In interpreting
this talk from a situated discourse perspective, we can see that Pak Feizel’s use
of Indonesian from line 9 onwards shows that he does not orientate to Pak Sary-
ono’s use of ngoko Javanese on line 7 (that is the é suffixed to nomor ‘number’).
That is to say, he makes no comment about the appropriateness of the use of
Javanese. This interpretation of non-orientation is further supported by looking
at the larger conversation of which this extract is a part, where we see that inter-
ethnic talk among these speakers consists mostly of Indonesian, which suggests
that this use of Javanese wasn’t anything out of the ordinary.
We thus have to ask whether this alternation between Indonesian and
ngoko Javanese is relevant to the participants. It may be that this is interpreted
by participants as one medium, that is, language alternation is the medium
(Gardner-Chloros 1995; Álvarez-Cáccamo 1998; Gafaranga and Torras 2002).
This is in contrast to categorizing this conversational usage as ‘code switch-
ing’, where speakers alternate between two separate languages with social
what we know about the phonological, morphological and grammatical simi-
can and are easily borrowed into Indonesian and vice versa (Poedjosoedarmo
1982; Errington 1998b:107, 115).
Examination of recordings and observations of these people’s talk in other
can say, then, that their speech was habitual and authentic. Moreover, look-
ing at inter-ethnic interactions among other male heads of household of this
RT also revealed usage of this medium and no negative comments by other
neighbours about such usage (Goebel 2000:150-60, 225-66). In other words,
this style appeared to be associated not only with the speakers described
above but also with other inter-ethnic interactions in this neighbourhood.
The use of this style contrasts somewhat with the style used in RT05, as
can be seen in Extract 3. Extract 3 is from an interaction that I recorded in the
guestroom of Pak Abdul’s house during one of the card games that regularly
115-49, 207-24, 267-93). The conversation is between Pak Abdul and Pak Madi.
Pak Abdul reported that he was a Buginese from the island of Sulawesi and
Pak Madi reported being a Javanese born and raised in Semarang. Pak Madi
was an original inhabitant of this RT, while Pak Abdul had moved into this
RT from Sulawesi about twenty months before this recording was made. Pak
Abdul, considered a good card-player by other members of the RT, is goading
Pak Madi to pick a card from the down-turned deck knowing full well that he
has the card Pak Madi is looking for.
7 Nababan 1985:5; Moeliono 1986:30; Abas 1987; Nababan 1991:119; Lowenberg 1992:65-6, 70-1;
Dardjowidjojo 1998:36.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 81
Extract 3. Inter-ethnic talk in a card game in RT05
Pak Abdul (NJ)
1 keduk Pakkeduk’ = Pick up, Pak, pick up.
Pak Madi (J)
2 →= nanti ndhisik waé:: = Later, just wait a moment rst.
Pak Abdul (NJ)
3
4
= keduk keduk Pak Madi +keduk
keduk keduk kok lo:h+ lo::h’ (.5)
Pick up, pick up, Pak Madi, pick up, pick
up, pick up, gee why why [did you throw
that card away for]!
Pak Madi (J)
5 wis ben lah’ = [It’s] already happened eh [it is too late].
Pak Abdul (NJ)
6
7
= maksudé piyé { (???) keduk
(laughs)
What do you mean [by] (???) picking up
[that?] (laughs)
Pak Madi (J)
8 { lah iya’ e::h=Yeah. Eh.
Pak Abdul (NJ)
9
10
= asem aman sik ok asé ok asem
(said while laughing) (3.0)
What a bummer [for you], [I was]
playing it safe rst [by holding the] ace,
heh [that you needed], what a bummer.
Pak Madi (J)
11 nunggu si thok iki’ (2.3) I [was] waiting for just one [more card].
Pak Abdul (NJ)
12 #anu# { tak nggolèk iki ok’Eh, I [was] looking for this, heh.
Pak Madi (J)
13
14
15
{ iki nggolèk si menéh kih’
(.9) #nggolèk as si néh ki#
(3.7)
I [was] looking for one more. I [was]
looking for one more ace.
Talk in lines 2, 5-6, 9, and 11-14 of Extract 3 is characterized by the heavy use
of ngoko Javanese forms (bold) and ambiguous forms that can be classified as
either Indonesian or ngoko Javanese (bold italics). This usage is surprising giv-
en that it is Indonesian that is ideologically associated with such ‘inter-ethnic’
conversations. From a situated discourse perspective, we can see that neither
participant found the use of ngoko Javanese or ambiguous forms strange. That
is to say, none of them commented on it as strange, nor is the use of pause
indicative of the existence of any conversational problems.
This assumed ‘normality’ is further supported if we change our focus of
this card game, none commented on the language used, nor did I hear of any
Zane Goebel82
subsequent interactions involving these participants in a number of other set-
tings (Goebel 2000:207-24, 267-93). In other words, such speech was habitual
and authentic in the eyes of the other members of this neighbourhood.
Thus, as with Extract 2, we could classify the alternation between
Indonesian, ngoko Javanese, and ambiguous forms as ‘alternation as the
medium’ rather than as code switching. Put in terms of style, alternation as
the medium was a new style that emerged out of interactions among these
speakers. Also of interest here is that other inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic inter-
actions (that is interactions among the Javanese themselves) in this neigh-
bourhood were in this style, despite many speakers of Javanese ethnicity
having the ability to use krama varieties of Javanese and Indonesian had they
wished (Goebel 2000:150-60, 207-24, 267-93).
some examples of such a style in inter-ethnic interactions involving the
female heads of household in RT08. Extract 4 presents an example of such
talk which occurred in an RT meeting of female heads of household recorded
the purpose of the meeting was to gather funds from members (Rp 10,000
from each RT household) for the preparation of food for the festivities that
accompany the Independence Day celebrations, which were to be held the
following month.
This particular interaction occurs about 25 minutes into the meeting. It is
preceded by a number of the members (including those in the extract below)
-
ings nor wants to contribute money or participate in RT social life. Shortly
up the Rp 10,000, and starts with Bu Joko’s question to Bu Saryono and Bu
Pujianto. In connection with this interaction I will be focusing only upon the
talk between Bu Tri, a non-Javanese, and her Javanese neighbours (Bu Nur,
Bu Joko, Bu Saryono, Bu Pujianto, and Bu Toro). Bu Tri reported being born
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 83
Extract 4. Inter-ethnic talk in a female neighbourhood meeting in RT08
Bu Nur (J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Bu Robi karo Pak Robi iki yo
daluki ya: angèl wis ra usah
waé opo? (.4) Pak Indro:: sampai
Pak Jati Pak Tobing Pak
podo angèl waé? (1.2) #orangé
nggak bayar# tenan =
Bu Robi and Pak Robi, yeah, [if] asked
for [money] yeah [are] dicult, what if
[we] don’t bother [with them], Pak
Indro down to Pak Jati, Pak Tobing, Pak
are just as dicult,
those people don’t pay ever.
Bu Joko (J)
7
8
= wolulas Bu mung dadi (Dani?)
{ (sebagian??) (???) (pergi??)
Only eighteen Bu happened [that is,
have paid up] (Dani?) (only some?) (???)
(went?).
Bu Nur (J)
9
10
11
12
{ kok aku ujané males +dadi
males kon nariki ora dikei
sebelahku yo ngono ora dikei?+
=
Actually I couldn’t be bothered, [I]
become disinterested [if] told to go and
collect money, [they] don’t give [me
any]. Beside me like that [that is that’s
the story], [they] don’t give [me any]
Bu Joko (J)
13 = oh iya = Oh yeah.
Bu Nur (J)
14 = { Sebelahku’ [the ones living] beside me.
Bu Tri (NJ)
15
16
→{ Sing nggoné dhéwéké akèh
sing ora bayar =
[Actually] those who own and live in
their houses [make up] many who
don’t pay.
Bu Nur (J)
17
18
19
20
= >akèh kok sing podo ora gelem
bayar okaku bari Bu
wis kuwi ra bayar wis
{ ngono#
Plenty, heh, who don’t like paying,
heh. Me and Buhave already
[tried but they] didn’t pay, already like
that [that is, it’s like that].
Bu Saryono (J)
21 { iki wis (.6) Juli loh Bu:’ = It’s already July, heh Bu.
Bu Tri (NJ)
22 = Ha = What?
Bu Saryono (J)
23 = iki Juli loh = It’s July, heh.
Bu Tri (NJ)
24 = lah iya ora opo opo { toh’Yeah, that’s right [but] it doesn’t
maer, does it?
Zane Goebel84
Bu Saryono (J)
25
26
27
{ lah iya wis ditentuké
toh masak apa? #dianggerké
{ sésuk#
Yeah, that’s right, [we] have decided,
right, what [we’re going] to cook,
[we’ll] conrm it later.
Bu Tri (NJ)
28
29
Masakya Bu#
(.3)
What will [we] cook, heh Bu?
Bu Toro (J)
30 Wis tumpengan? { #waé ra wis#Ok, just tumpengan6, that will do.
Bu Tri (NJ)
31
32
{ iki loh ko bingung Bu:
{ #Toro#
Gee, why [are] you confused, Bu Toro!
Bu Saryono (J)
33
34
{ tumpengan
{ Bu Toro?
tumpengan, Bu Toro?
Bu Toro (J)
35
36
{ heeh’ (.3) ra iso masak aku?
#heeh# (gives money to Bu Tri) =
Yeah, I [am] no good at cooking, yeah.
(gives money to Bu Tri)
Bu Tri (NJ)
37 = bayar (1.0) terserah kamu kok = Pay, It’s up to you, eh.
Bu Joko (J)
38 = arep go nyumbang #sésuk#(.6) [That money] can be for a donation
later.
Bu Joko (J)
39 (laughs) Bu Tri kih apal #iki# = (laughs) This Bu Tri remembers, she
[does].
Bu Tri (NJ)
40
41
42
= apal aku apal’ (.4) a:h (.1)
Sanggup bayaré gampang? (.3)
tekoné ra tahu::
Remember, I remember, ah able [to
help out], the payment is easy, [but]
never comes [to RT functions].
As can be seen in lines 15-16, 24, 31 and 40-42, Bu Tri’s talk with her Java-
nese interlocutors is characterized by a heavy use of ngoko Javanese forms and
ambiguous forms. Again, such usage is surprising given that Indonesian is
the ideologically prescribed medium of communication in such ‘inter-ethnic’
conversations. From a situated discourse standpoint we can see that neither
participant finds the use of ngoko Javanese or ambiguous forms strange, nor is
the use of pause indicative of any problems in the talk.
This ‘normality’ is further supported if we bring in ethnographic infor-
mation. In my post-interaction conversations with participants, none com-
mented on the language used. I didn’t hear of any gossip about Bu Tri and her
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 85
language use. She did not avoid the other participants nor did they avoid her
in any subsequent RT meetings and functions. Moreover, I and my research
assistants regularly observed usage of this medium in subsequent interactions
66). In other words, usage of this medium was habitual and authentic and, as
with the previous extract, we could classify the above language alternation as
‘alternation as the medium’ rather than as code switching.
Thus far we have seen conversations between non-Javanese and Javanese
participants making heavy use of ngoko Javanese and ambiguous forms. Such
practices were also observed in conversations among participants where nei-
ther participant claimed to be Javanese, as can be seen in Extract 5. In this
extract Pak Abdul (the Buginese in Extract 3) is now interacting with Mas Putu,
Extract 5. Inter-ethnic talk in a card game in RT05
Pak Abdul (NJ)
1
2
3
→
belum apa apa udah masuk
sangono loh’ (1.3) delapan
puluh lima’ =
[I] haven’t done anything yet [and I] already
have this much, heh, 85 points.
Mas Putu (NJ)
4
5
= ↑wah iki↑ (.7) tinggal
nutupké iki Pak’ (.3)
Wow [look at] this
to close this, Pak [that is, to declare that
you’ve won].
In summary, Extracts 3-5 support the argument that there is no fixed one-to-
one relationship between language and ethnic identity (Auer 1995; Sebba and
Wootton 1998; Gafaranga 2001). This is so because we have those who have
identified themselves as non-Javanese using ngoko Javanese forms. Moreover,
such usage was habitual and thus authentic, and represents acts of ‘adequa-
tion’ rather than ‘styling the other’. Thus, in this context it appears that these
links aren’t salient in the talk at hand. While the above gives us some insights
into the conduct of situated inter-ethnic talk, it does leave open the question
of why non-Javanese use ngoko forms instead of Indonesian ones when talk-
ing with their Javanese neighbours. This question seems especially interesting
given that all participants were competent in Indonesian and thus could have
conducted monolingual conversations in Indonesian had they chosen to do so
(for details see Goebel 2000:150-60). In comparing male talk in the two RTs, it
also leaves open the question of why there is a tendency to use a style that has
a high frequency of Indonesian forms in RT08 and a high frequency of ngoko
Javanese forms in RT05.
Zane Goebel86
Accounting for language use
In this section I would like to account for the different patterns of language
choice found in the talk examined thus far. In doing so I am moving from a
situated discourse view to an ethnographic one that places these conversa-
tions in their wider cultural context. In particular I will argue the following:
1 That the Indonesian state plays an important role in the formation of com-
munity groupings and thus ‘conditions of production’. Such a position
draws on Bourdieu’s ideas (1994) about the genesis of social structures;
2 That participants’ income has an influence on interaction insofar as it de-
termines where people live and thus also contributes to the conditions of
production of talk (see Giddens 1973);
3 That income has other influences in these two neighbourhoods, especially
with regard to how frequently and in what contexts members of these two
RTs interact;
4 That the examination of participants’ daily social lives also helps account
for the language choices described in the previous section. For example,
the routinization of social action in time and space allows for the reproduc-
tion of certain social relationships;
5 That participants’ ideas about self and other interactions influence their
access to situations where they could learn ngoko Javanese.
Taken together, these factors represent the forces that contribute to the forma-
tion of communities of practice and their associated styles. Just as important-
ly, these five points also suggest broader patterns of interaction (and language
use) that highlight the usefulness of incorporating insights from class-based
interpretive frameworks, such as that offered by Milroy and Milroy (1992).
Conditions of production: the state, income, and residency patterns
In New Order Indonesia (roughly 1965-1998) the state played a large role in
facilitating structures that allowed the implementation of government poli-
tics and policy at the local level. For example, the processing of kartu tanda
penduduk (KTP, national identity cards) required to secure goods and services,
such as credit, driving licences, and medical care, was initiated at the rukun
tetangga level (an RT, often equated with one complete street of houses and
their occupants). These political structures contributed to the formation of
groupings of people who under other circumstances may not have had any
reason to establish and maintain the types of social interaction I describe be-
low. These structures are summarized in Diagram 1.8
8 For a detailed account of the RT system, see Sullivan 1992.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 87
The role of the state in determining conditions of production can be directly
seen in this case, given that the two RTs where I conducted this research were
part of a government housing estate, Perumnas Plamongan (Perumnas is an
acronym for perumahan nasional ‘government housing estate’). This housing
estate was built to provide housing for people falling into two broad income
categories, middle to upper (menengah ke atas), and middle to lower (menengah
ke bawah). Thus, here the state also played a role in bringing together differ-
ent groups of people who may not otherwise have come into contact. At the
same time this practice provided linguistic resources or labels for members of
these RTs, and Indonesians in general, to categorize social distinction. Income
also contributes to the formation of conditions of production in Semarang
by determining where people live. For example, rents and house prices are
Diagram 1. Flow chart of state-sponsored administrative groupings
Indonesian Central Government
other provinces – Province of Central Java – other provinces
other cities and kebupaten (regencies) – City of Semarang – other cities and kebupaten
other kecematan - Kecematan Plamongan made up of a number of kelurahan – other kecematan
other kelurahan - Kelurahan Plamongan Kulon made up of 38 RWs - other kelurahan
other RWs - rukun warga (RW) made up of 8-12 RTs - other RWs
other RTs - rukun tetangga (RT) made up of 20-30 RKs - other RTs
other RKs - rukun keluarga (RK) made up of one family, averaging 5 members - other RKs
Zane Goebel88
vastly different in RT08 and RT05. Access to income thus helps determine in
which RT someone would live. Comparatively speaking, the higher-priced
houses (RT08) use around three times more space than houses in RT05. This
use of space in turn influenced the likelihood that neighbours would interact.
For example, within RT05 the combination of the closeness of houses, their
low roof design (which made them extremely hot inside), the distance of the
house to the road, the absence of fences or gates, their height and width, and
the length of the street, made it much more likely that neighbours would have
contact with each other at some time during the day (see Plates 1-3).
-
example, because of the minimal infrastructure in each neighbourhood, these
RTs had to collectively organize construction and maintenance of street light-
ing, sewerage, and security. The planning and implementation of this was car-
ried out through social activities, such as government-sanctioned and encour-
aged monthly RT meetings, working bees, and nightly security patrols.
In RT05 low incomes and shorter working hours resulted in members
being unable to pay for outside help to do these tasks, but they did have time
to participate regularly in meetings and to carry out these activities them-
selves. Those who were regularly involved in formal RT activities also tended
volleyball, badminton). Social life in RT05 appeared to contrast considerably
preferred to pay hired help to do all RT maintenance, and who preferred to
socialize with people from outside their RT. In fact, they interacted at best on
a monthly basis at formal RT occasions, and even then, many male members
from frequent interaction.
a role in the production of certain social structures such as RT and neighbour-
hood organizations within these RTs. This is not to suggest a totally determin-
istic view – that consumption as a phenomenon of class is the only determiner
of the ways people speak – but rather to highlight the fact that these factors
put people in certain situations. Moreover, we have not only seen that the
existence of these structures was on a scale from weak (RT8) to strong (RT5),
but that it is just as important to see members’ interactions or lack thereof as
playing an important role in the maintenance or reproduction of these social
structures (Giddens 1984). That is to say, without members actively partici-
pating in meetings and discussing RT business, these RTs would only exist on
paper as statistical communities in the lurah
Plate 1. RT05
Plate 2. A typical middle-income house in RT08, situated to the left of the house in
Plate 1
Zane Goebel90
Daily life, routinization, and the reproduction of social relationships
In this section I take a look at the daily lives of the participants discussed thus
far. I will concentrate mainly on the daily lives of the non-Javanese. A detailed
account of the other participants’ daily social lives can be found in Goebel
2000:115-46, 161-206, 225-66). I will argue that among the males of RT05 and
among the females of RT08 there is a history of frequent and intensive interac-
tion (that is routinization) which contrasts significantly with the daily lives of
the males of RT08.
A look at the daily social lives of Pak Abdul, Pak Madi, and Mas Putu
(Extracts 3 and 5) reveals that Pak Abdul was unemployed and had given up
Semarang. Pak Abdul noted that he wasn’t particularly concerned about con-
tinuing to look for a job because of his spouse’s employment as a relatively
the morning. Indeed, Pak Abdul had a lot of spare time on his hands each day
-
bours – mainly Javanese – many of whom were either unemployed or uni-
versity students. On my frequent visits to this RT in the mornings, Pak Abdul
Plate 3. The main road running through RT08
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 91
and his neighbours could be found involved in recreational activities, such as
card games, marbles, video games, watching sports on television, listening to
Mas Putu was studying to be a sailor and had lived in this RT for a year
and in another city of Central Java with his sister for two years prior to that.
He spent much of his spare time interacting with Pak Abdul and other neigh-
bours, especially in the recreational activities noted above. Similarly, Pak
Madi, who worked as a part-time pro-bono lawyer, would participate in any
of the recreational activities noted above when he was at home. If none of
these RT members had work commitments, these recreational activities would
continue until Maghrib (the Islamic prayer at dusk), when people would go
at either Pak Abdul’s house or at the guard post, and resume playing cards
or chess, until around eleven or twelve o’clock. During this evening period,
Abdul, Pak Madi, and Mas Putu were engaged in similar activities, and indeed
other RT members coming to either play cards or watch a game in progress.
By looking at Bu Tri’s history and her daily social life within RT08 we
arrive at an interpretation similar to that reached about Pak Abdul and Mas
Putu, namely that frequent interaction was an important determinant of lan-
guage choice. Bu Tri was the next-door neighbour of Bu Nur, the Javanese
with whom she exchanged Javanese in Extract 4. Bu Tri, Bu Nurholis, and Bu
Toro were original inhabitants of the RT, and Bu Saryono and Bu Joko had
Tri regularly interacted with Bu Nurholis on Saturdays and Sundays when
she shopped at the fresh-produce seller who cycled by every morning. Bu
Tri almost never missed any of the formal RT activities (Goebel 2000:115-49,
225-66), which gave her numerous opportunities to interact with the other
Javanese with whom she is speaking in Extract 4.
In contrast Pak Feizel (in Extract 2) rarely interacted with his Javanese
neighbours despite living in this neighbourhood for eight years. This was
due in part to his place of work: it was located two hours drive outside of
Semarang. This had led him to board during the week for a number of years
and then, during the period of this research, to commute, leaving home very
small travel business which had him regularly repairing his vehicle in the
-
ily spent weekends with relatives from Kalimantan on picnics or at religious
gatherings.
Zane Goebel92
In this section we have seen how social life led to the routinization (or to
the lack thereof) of some forms of social interaction. In particular we have seen
how this relates to the formation of bonds of intimacy or friendship among
neighbours. How this relates to language use can be seen more directly if we
look at these people’s views about self, other, language, and learning.
Views about self, other, language and learning in RT05 and RT08
In this section I argue that orientation toward the patterns of interaction de-
scribed above is facilitated by different ideas about how much one should
interact with neighbours and the type of language one uses with neighbours.
While all of the non-Javanese participants above noted their need and wish
to adapt to their new environs, including learning a local language, they had
-
bours. For example, in RT08 many members noted the importance of jaga
jarak ‘keeping one’s distance from others in order to guard against unwanted
outcomes’ with one’s neighbours. In some instances this was linked to a
fear of neighbours asking for a loan of money or equipment. A number of
members of RT05 (including the participants discussed above) viewed RT08
members’ ideas on this and their infrequent interactions as indicating an un-
family-like and individualistic neighbourhood.
In RT05, on the other hand, one was sungkan ‘embarrassed, uneasy’ about
material help available when asked. Such regular interaction among neigh-
bours contributed to the formation of close friendships among neighbours.
For example, Pak Abdul, Pak Madi and Mas Putu (in Extracts 3 and 5) spoke
of themselves as cehes
others from this RT. When explaining what it meant to be ‘cehes’ they noted
that it meant the same thing as being akrab
interacted with someone the more cehes one became.
They went on to say that the more cehes one was with one’s Javanese
neighbours the more one needed to use ngoko Javanese in interaction with
them. In contrast, continued use of Indonesian with a Javanese with whom
one frequently interacts would be interpreted as kagok ‘strange, not appropri-
ate’, or worse, nggak ramah ‘not friendly’. In other words, using exclusively
This conception of self-other relations and the role of language use also
-
taining transcripts of other conversations and were asked to note the relation-
ships that existed between speakers using ngoko Javanese and Indonesian.
For example, Pak Abdul, Mas Putu and Pak Madi all noted that in the case
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 93
of speakers using ngoko Javanese, the speakers were close friends, while in
the case of speakers using Indonesian, the speakers were just acquaintances.
I conclude that they recognized the use of ngoko Javanese as indicative of a
speaker’s familiarity or friendship.
Such a relationship between language choice and social relations was also
observed in the case of Bu Tri and her Javanese interlocutors in Extract 4.
When evaluating transcribed conversations, they noted that in inter-ethnic
interactions Indonesian could be used to indicate relative unfamiliarity (kenal
tapi tidak akrab), while the use of ngoko Javanese could be used to indicate
non-Javanese in Extract 4) could and regularly did use ngoko Javanese in her
she also appeared to prefer to use Indonesian rather than ngoko Javanese with
those with whom she rarely interacted (Goebel 2000:150-60, 225-66).
What I have illustrated in this section is how people at the local level
linked social relationships with language use. These people were aware of the
context-creating capabilities of language use. That is to say, they were aware
use of Indonesian and ngoko Javanese. This parallels my earlier discussion
of the enregisterment process whereby a regional language – in this case
Javanese – was associated with ‘us’ while Indonesian was associated with
‘them’. I suggest that this is an example of how government language policy
has led to unintended associations, which have been adopted in talk. Put a
ngoko Javanese and
Indonesian were used by non-Javanese participants to do ‘intimacy’ rather
than ‘ethnicity’ work (in the case of ngoko) and ‘unfamiliarity’ work (in the
case of Indonesian).
Conclusions
In this paper I have explored the links between language, ethnicity and class
in Indonesia by placing them within a framework that allows insights into
the complex relationships between action and social structure generally. I
have shown that, while the Indonesian government’s language policy and its
implementation through education and the media has helped reproduce as-
sociations between language and ethnicity, such relationships only represent
knowledge to be appropriated in situated interaction. Indeed, in the case of
language and ethnicity we have seen that at the situated discourse level there
is a tendency toward ignoring such associations.
However, in accounting for this divergence between ideology and prac-
tice, we have seen how the state plays a part in the formation of other struc-
Zane Goebel94
-
terns and the formation of neighbourhood social organizations. I have argued
that the above partially represent the ‘conditions of production’ of situated
talk. These conditions of production also contributed to the routinization of
certain activities in space and time and the reproduction of certain social rela-
tionships and language ideologies in these two neighbourhoods. Routinized
social interaction appears to contribute to the maintenance or reproduction of
structures such as RTs and certain styles.
In summary, the development of style appears to relate to local-level com-
munities of practice (COP), as suggested by Eckert (2000) among others. The
relationship between these local-level COPs and the development of broader
‘style as distinctiveness’ (Irvine 2001), which can be interpreted in terms of
social class. While such a position might give the impression of a cause-and-
the role of the media and education – we need to keep in mind that it is not
only possible but likely that participants recontextualized their knowledge
of enregistered varieties (gained through their experiences at school and as
media consumers) to do all sorts of meaning-making work. Moreover, in
identities, such as class, ethnic membership, or educational level (as has
been discussed in work on styling the other and adequation: Skapoulli 2004;
Sweetland 2002; Bucholtz and Hall 2004).
Finally, in this paper I have ignored other equally interesting relation-
in RT08 raises questions about language and gender. Such questions further
emphasize the complexity of the relationships that exist between action and
social structure.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 95
→point of analysis
# . lowering of volume
. raising of volume
previous one
previous one
: within a word vowel or consonant preceding the
semi-colon has been drawn out
=
between speaker turns
{ squiggly brackets indicates an overlap in the talk, with one
person starting to talk before the other
. between words indicates a pause longer than a latch
but shorter than 0.3 seconds
Brackets with a number (.4) length of silence in tenths of a second
Brackets with three ?, that is (???) represents a word that could not be
transcribed
Appendix
Transcription conventions
Zane Goebel96
References
Abas, Husen
1987 Indonesian as a unifying language of wider communication; A historical and
sociolinguistic perspective. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research
School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. [Pacific Lin-
guistics, Series D, 73; Materials in Languages of Indonesia 37.]
Agha, Asif
2003 ‘The social life of cultural value’, Language and Communication 23:231-73.
Álvarez-Cáccamo, Celso
1998 ‘From “switching code” to code-switching’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-
switching in conversation; Language, interaction and identity, pp. 29-48.
Anderson, Edmond
1993 ‘Speech levels; The case of Sundanese’, Pragmatics 3:107-36.
Antaki, Charles and Sue Widdicombe
1998 ‘Identity as an achievement and as a tool’, in: Charles Antaki and Sue
Widdicombe (eds), Identities in talk, pp. 1-14. London: Sage.
Anwar, Khaidir
1980 Indonesian; The development and use of a national language
Gadjah Mada University Press.
Auer, Peter
1995 ‘The pragmatics of code-switching; A sequential approach’, in: Lesley
Milroy and Pieter Muysken (eds), One speaker, two languages; Cross-dis-
ciplinary perspectives on code-switching, pp. 115-135. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Bakhtin, M.M.
1981 The dialogic imagination; Four essays. Translated by Caryl Emerson and
Michael Holquist. Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of
Texas Press. [University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1.]
Barton, David and Karin Tusting (eds)
2005 Beyond communities of practice; Language, power and social context. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. [Learning in Doing; Social, Cogni-
tive, and Computational Perspectives.]
Bauman, Richard and Charles Briggs
1990 ‘Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social
life’, Annual Review of Anthropology 19:59-88.
Bertrand, Jacques
2004 Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. [Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies.]
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction; A social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by Rich-
ard Nice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. [Originally pub-
lished as La distinction; Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit, 1979.]
1994 ‘Rethinking the state; Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field’,
Sociological Theory 12:1-18.
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 97
Bruner, Edward M.
1974 ‘The expression of ethnicity in Indonesia’, in: Abner Cohen (ed.), Urban
ethnicity, pp. 251-80. London: Tavistock. [Association of Social Anthro-
pologists of the Commonwealth Monographs 12.]
Bucholtz, Mary and Kira Hall
2004 ‘Language and identity’, in: Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to
linguistic anthropology, pp. 369-94. Oxford: Blackwell. [Blackwell Com-
panions to Anthropology 1.]
Carter, Bob and Alison Sealy
2000 ‘Language, structure and agency; What can realist social theory offer to
sociolinguistics?’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 4:3-20.
Chua, Christian
2004 ‘Defining Indonesian Chineseness under the New Order’, Journal of
Contemporary Asia 34:465-79.
Coupland, Nikolas, Srikant Sarangi and Christopher N. Candlin (eds)
2001 Sociolinguistics and social theory. London: Longman. [Language in Social
Life Series.]
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono
1998 ‘Strategies for a successful national language policy; The Indonesian
case’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130:35-47.
Echols, John M. and Hassan Shadily
1992 Kamus Indonesia-Inggris; An Indonesian-English dictionary. Jakarta: Grame-
dia.
Eckert, Penelope
2000 Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in
Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell. [Language in Society 27.]
Eckert, Penelope and Sally McConnell-Ginet
1992 ‘Think practically and look locally; Language and gender as commu-
nity-based practice’, Annual Review of Anthropology 21:461-90.
Errington, Joseph J.
1998a ‘Indonesian(‘s) development; On the state of a language of state’, in:
Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds),
Language ideologies; Practice and theory, pp.
University Press. [Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 16.]
1998b Shifting languages; Interaction and identity in Javanese Indonesia. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. [Studies in the Social and Cultural
Foundations of Language 19.]
2000 ‘Indonesian(‘s) authority’, in: Paul V. Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of language;
Ideologies, polities, and identities, pp. 205-27. Santa Fe, NM: School of
American Research Press, Oxford: Currey. [Advanced Seminar Series.]
2001 ‘Colonial linguistics’, Annual Review of Anthropology 30:19-39.
Franceschini, Rita
1998 ‘Code-switching and the notion of code in linguistics; Proposals for a
dual focus model’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation;
Language, interaction and identity
Gafaranga, Joseph
2001 ‘Linguistic identities in talk-in-interaction; Order in bilingual conversa-
tion’, Journal of Pragmatics 33:1901-25.
Zane Goebel98
Gafaranga, Joseph and Maria-Carma Torras
2002 ‘Interactional otherness; Towards a redefinition of codeswitching’, Inter-
national Journal of Bilingualism 6:1-22.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope
1995 ‘Code-switching in community, regional and national repertoires; The
myth of the discreteness of linguistic systems’, in: Lesley Milroy and Pie-
ter Muysken (eds), One speaker, two languages; Cross-disciplinary perspecti-
ves on code-switching, pp. 68-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giddens, Anthony
1973 The class structure of advanced societies. London: Hutchinson.
1984 The constitution of society; Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California Press.
Goebel, Zane
2000 Communicative competence in Indonesian; Language choice in inter-ethnic inter-
actions in Semarang. PhD thesis, Northern Territory University, Darwin.
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Publications in Conduct and Communication.]
1983 ‘The interaction order; American Sociological Association, 1982 presi-
dential address’, American Sociological Review 48:1-17.
Gubrium, Jaber F. and James A. Holstein
1997 The new language of qualitative method
Press.
Gumperz, John J.
1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Studies in
Interactional Sociolinguistics 1.]
Hefner, Robert W.
2001 ‘Introduction; Multiculturalism and citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore,
and Indonesia’, in: Robert W. Hefner (ed.), The politics of multiculturalism;
Pluralism and citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, pp. 1-58.
Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Heller, Monica
1988 ‘Where do we go from here?’, in: Monica Heller (ed.), Codeswitching;
Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, pp. 265-72. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter. [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 48.]
Heryanto, Ariel
2007 ‘Then there were languages; Bahasa Indonesia was one among many’,
in: Sinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook (eds), Disinventing and recon-
stituting languages, pp. 42-61. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 62.]
Hoey, Brian A.
2003 ‘Nationalism in Indonesia; Building imagined and intentional commu-
nities through transmigration’, Ethnology 42:109-26.
Hooker, Virginia Matheson
1993 ‘New Order language in context’, in: Virginia Matheson Hooker (ed.),
Culture and society in New Order Indonesia, pp. 272-93. Kuala Lumpur: Ox-
ford University Press. [South-East Asian Social Science Monographs.]
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 99
2006 ‘Assimilation, multiculturalism, hybridity; The dilemas of the ethnic
Chinese in post-Suharto Indonesia’, Asian Studies Review 7:149-66.
Hoshour, Cathy A.
1997 ‘Resettlement and the politicization of ethnicity in Indonesia’, Bijdragen
tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 153:557-76.
Irvine, Judith T.
2001 ‘”Style” as distinctiveness; The culture and ideology of linguistic differ-
entiation’, in: Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford (eds), Style and socio-
linguistic variation, pp. 21-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, Judith T. and Susan Gal
2000 ‘Language ideology and linguistic differentiation’, in: Paul V. Kroskrity
(ed.), Regimes of language; Ideologies, polities, and identities, pp. 35-84. Santa
Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, Oxford: Currey. [Advanced
Seminar Series.]
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
1991 Situated learning; Legitimate peripheral participation
University Press. [Learning in Doing; Social, Cognitive, and Computa-
tional Perspectives.]
Lenhart, Lioba
1997 ‘Orang Suku Laut ethnicity and acculturation’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde 153:577-604.
Le Page, Robert B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller
1985 Acts of identity; Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li Wei
2002 ‘”What do you want me to say?”; On the conversation analysis approach
to bilingual interaction’, Language in Society 31:159-80.
Lowenberg, Peter H.
1990 ‘Language and identity in the Asian state; The case of Indonesia’, George-
town Journal of Languages and Linguistics 1:109-20.
1992 ‘Language policy and language identity in Indonesia’, Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication 3:59-77.
Meeuwis, Michael and Jan Blommaert
1998 ‘A monolectal view of code-switching; Layered code-switching among
Zairians in Belgium’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation;
Language, interaction and identity
Milroy, Lesley
2002 ‘Social networks’, in: J.K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schil-
ling-Estes (eds), The handbook of language variation and change, pp. 549-72.
Oxford: Blackwell. [Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.]
Milroy, Lesley and Matthew Gordon
2003 Sociolinguistics; Method and interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Lan-
guage in Society 34.]
Milroy, Lesley and James Milroy
1992 ‘Social network and social class; Toward an integrated sociolinguistic
model’, Language in Society 21:1-26.
Zane Goebel100
Moeliono, Anton M.
1986 Language development and cultivation; Alternative approaches in language
planning. Translated by Kay Ikranagara. [Canberra]: Department of Lin-
guistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National Univer-
sity. [Pacific Linguistics, Series D, 68; Materials in Languages of Indone-
sia 30.]
Nababan, P.W.J.
1985 ‘Bilingualism in Indonesia; Ethnic language maintenance and the spread
of the national language’, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 13:1-19.
1991 ‘Language in education; The case of Indonesia’, International Review of
Education 37:113-31.
Ochs, Elinor
1988 Culture and language development; Language acquisition and language so-
cialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 6.]
1996 ‘Linguistic resources for socializing humanity’, in: John J. Gumperz
and Stephen C. Levinson (eds), Rethinking linguistic relativity, pp. 407-
37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Studies in the Social and
Cultural Foundations of Language 17.]
Oesch-Serra, Cecilia
1998 ‘Discourse connectives in bilingual conversation; The case of an emerging
Italian-French mixed code’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversa-
tion; Language, interaction and identity
Poedjosoedarmo, Soepomo
1982 Javanese influence on Indonesian. Canberra: Department of Linguistics,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. [Pa-
cific Linguistics, Series D, 38; Materials in Languages of Indonesia 7.]
Prawiroatmodjo, S.
1989 Bausastra: Jawa-Indonesia. Jakarta: Haji Masagung.
1993 Bausastra: Jawa-Indonesia. Jakarta: Haji Masagung.
Rampton, Ben
1999 ‘Styling the other; Introduction’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3:421-7.
Robson, Stuart and Singgih Wibisono
2002 Javanese English dictionary
Hong Kong: Periplus.
Schefold, Reimar
1998 ‘The domestication of culture; Nation-building and ethnic diversity in
Indonesia’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 154:259-80.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. and Rachelle Charlier Doucet
1998 ‘The “real” Haitian creole; Ideology, metalinguistics, and orthographic
choice’ in: Bambi B. Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard and Paul V. Kros-
krity (eds), Language ideologies; Practice and theory, pp. 285-316. New
-
guistics 16.]
Schieffelin, Bambi B. and Elinor Ochs (eds)
1986 Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. [Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 3.]
Language, class, and ethnicity in Indonesia 101
Sebba, Mark and Tony Wootton
1998 ‘We, they and identity; Sequential versus identity-related explanation
in code-switching’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation;
Language, interaction and identity
Skapoulli, Elena
2004 ‘Gender codes at odds and the linguistic construction of hybrid iden-
tity’, Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3:245-60.
Smith-Hefner, Nancy Joan
1989 ‘A social history of language change in highland East Java’, Journal of
Asian Studies 48:257-71.
Steedly, Mary Margaret
1996 ‘The importance of proper names; Language and “national” identity in
colonial Karoland’, American Ethnologist 23:447-75.
Stroud, Christopher
1998 ‘Perspectives on cultural variability of discourse and some implications
for code-switching’, in: Peter Auer (ed.), Code-switching in conversation;
Language, interaction and identity
Sullivan, John
1992 Local government and community in Java; An urban case-study. Singapore:
Oxford University Press. [South-East Asian Social Science Monographs.]
Sweetland, Julie
2002 ‘Unexpected but authentic use of an ethnically-marked dialect’, Journal
of Sociolinguistics 6:514-38.
Tannen, Deborah
1984 Conversational style; Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
[Language and Learning for Human Service Professions.]
1993 (ed.) Framing in discourse
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of practice; Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press. [Learning in Doing; Social, Cognitive, and Com-
putational Perspectives.]
Wortham, Stanton E.F.
2005 ‘Socialization beyond the speech event’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropol-
ogy 15:95-112.
