A SOCIOLINGUISTIC CRITIQUE OF ACARA by
Zane Goebel©, La Trobe University, Melbourne
[email protected]
March 2016 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/.
1
A SOCIOLINGUISTIC CRITIQUE OF ACARA Zane Goebel, Department of Languages and Linguistics, La Trobe University, Melbourne
[email protected]
ABSTRACT Languages are often imagined as a unitary means of communication with a fixed social value, and with strong links to a particular territory and the people who reside there. This nationalist conceptualization of language typically doesn’t reflect actual communicative practices where people coble together just enough resources to get a communicative job done, nor does it acknowledge that the value of a language vis-à-vis other languages changes for a host of complex reasons. Even so, it is the unchanging and pure nationalist model of language that is often used in language classrooms. This article critiques descriptions of language in the recent Australian Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) because it continues to draw on a nationalist, unchanging model of language. I do this by drawing on research conducted in Indonesia. I conclude by pointing to how these types of research bases and the scholars involved in creating them might collaborate with language educators on future curriculum projects.
KEYWORDS: ACARA, nationalism, language ideology, Indonesian
2
INTRODUCTION In November 2015 I had the good fortune of listening to Andrea Truckenbrodt’s (2015) presentation on ACARA at the Languages and Cultures Network for Australian Universities (LCNAU) national colloquium in Sydney. Among other things, sociolinguists were invited to take a look at the material being developed by the Australian Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) for the languages that they taught at their respective universities. As a sociolinguist/linguistic anthropologist1 deeply interested in the connections between language and culture, I became curious about these materials as they related to Indonesian. I was excited to read the encouraging statements about the importance of considering language variation and change and the links between language and culture throughout the curriculum. In ACARA content descriptions these statements were supported by descriptions, such as the following which are taken from years five-six and nine-ten:
Years 5 and 6, Role of language and culture: noticing how Indonesians describe self, such as often including regional language, ethnic group and religious affiliation; understanding that Indonesian as a national language enables communication across diverse groups of people and languages, and is part of national identity. (ACARA, 2016a)
Years 9 and 10, Language variation and change: analysing examples of colloquial language, such as that used by sub-groups, for example, [the language of sociability], [SMS language]…. understanding that many Indonesians are familiar with a range of languages, for example, [standard language], [regional languages], [the language of sociability] and English, and can shift between these depending on the context… (ACARA, 2016b)
Years 9 and 10, Role of language and culture: recognising the historical, political and cultural functions and value of language, such as the origins of Bahasa Indonesia, and its historical and contemporary uses, developing awareness that the linguistic diversity of Indonesia reflects cultural diversity…. (ACARA, 2016c)
In looking at the first two descriptions, it is clear that language is conceptualized from the perspective of the nation-state. This contrasts with empirical research on actual everyday 3
practices where people use just enough linguistic and other semiotic forms associated with multiple languages to get a communicative job done (e.g. Agha, 2007; Alvarez-Cáccamo, 1998; Blommaert & Varis, 2011; Goebel, 2010b, 2015; Heller, 2007; Maier, 1993). While the “value of language” is mentioned in the third description, reference to statements on language change suggest that the value of language is not something that changes. Instead, change is only conceptualized as an interactional phenomena where people vary terms of address, politeness forms, and so on according to participants. In doing so, this view of change misses an important point that the value of one language vis-à-vis another changes as regimes do and as economic processes become enmeshed with linguistic ones (Bourdieu, 1991; Heller, Bell, Daveluy, McLaughlin, & Noel, 2015; Heller & Duchêne, 2012; Wallerstein, 2004). This paper expands this critique of ACARA descriptions through reference to work from sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. To support my argument that conceptualizations of language presupposed in these ACARA descriptions rely on an unchanging nation-state perspective of language I draw upon empirical data drawn from everyday communicative contexts in Indonesia. In doing so, I point to some of the challenges and prospects that this perspective will lay down for teachers of Indonesian, while pointing to an emerging research base that could potentially be used to encourage engagement with an updated conception of language.
ENOUGH-NESS: A CRITIQUE OF THIS THING CALLED LANGUAGE Since roughly the mid-1990s sociolinguists have been steadily exploring and explaining the processes of language ideology formation, as well as its relationship with everyday communicative practices (e.g. Bauman & Briggs, 2003; Gal & Woolard, 2001; Goebel, 2010b; Inoue, 2006; Kroskrity, 2000; Rampton, 2006; Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998). Much of the early work pointed to how ideas such as territory, community, personhood and linguistic form were configured to become what is commonly referred to as a language at the nation-state scale. In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on questioning the usefulness of the term “language” (e.g. Agha, 2007; Blommaert, 2010; Blommaert & Backus, 2011; Blommaert & Rampton, 2011; Blommaert & Varis, 2011), especially in light of everyday practices where people coble together just enough linguistic and other semiotic resources to get a communicative job done. This is evidenced not only in ways of talking about language practices that were referred to as mixing in the past, but also in reconceptualisations of key concepts, such as communicative competence (Goebel, 2013, 2015; Kramsch, 2006; Kramsch 4
& Whiteside, 2008). Rather than a unitary, pure, and immobile language, the starting point has become diversity, mobility, semiotic resources, enough-ness, and scale (Blommaert, 2010; Blommaert & Varis, 2011), with scholarly debates continuing over how to label communicative practices in situations characterized by diversity, e.g. crossing, styling, semiotic register, translanguaging, polylanguaging, metrolingualism, heteroglossia, signswitching, contact register, and scalar shifter, and so on (Agha, 2007; Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Garcia & Wei, 2014; Goebel, 2010b, 2014a; Goebel, Cole, & Manns, 2016; Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, & Møller, 2011; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015; Rampton, 1995, 1999; Wortham, 2006). Another emerging theme in sociolinguistics builds upon a long-term concern with change by linking it with the ideas of value and markets (Bourdieu, 1991; Wallerstein, 2004). In a nutshell, social change is increasingly linked with the idea that market saturation and the search for new niche markets has increasingly become tied to languages (Blommaert, 2010; Heller et al., 2015; Heller & Duchêne, 2012; Kelly-Holmes & Mautner, 2010; Pietikäinen & Kelly-Holmes, 2013). In many cases, this means that formerly undervalued languages (e.g. minority or ethnic) have gained value, whether as part of efforts to sell goods or as part of revival of tradition movements. In what follows I take a look at changing conceptualizations of language in Indonesia from two perspectives. I start by looking at how unitary and pure perspective of language are increasingly being replaced by ones where using just enough linguistic and other semiotic fragments from multiple languages is common. I follow this by looking at how social changes has impacted on the value of Indonesian vis-à-vis ethnic languages.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NATION AND OF THE EVERYDAY While the building of Indonesia as a nation started with its declaration of Independence in August 1945, large scale investment in nation building didn’t occur until the late 1960s (e.g. Booth, 1998; Dick, 2002; Stoler, 1995). As documented elsewhere in the world (Heller & Duchêne, 2012; Hobsbawm, 1992), nation-building and building a sense of pride in Indonesia was achieved through investment in schooling, communication, transportation infrastructures, and language planning activities that helped regiment ideas that languages were unitary, pure and that using language properly was part of what it meant to be a citizen (Bjork, 2005; Dardjowidjojo, 1998; Goebel, 2015; Kitley, 2000). Language planning activities had their basis in a long history of Dutch thought and colonial administrative practices (e.g. Alisjahbana, 1976; Errington, 2001; Maier, 1993; Moriyama, 2005; Sneddon, 2003). The 5
massive diversity that the Dutch encountered was simplified by a series of governors, administrators, educators, and settlers, many of whom reacted to Dutch sensibilities in the Netherlands. Ultimately, this process constructed language as a named entity, conceptualized it as pure, and constituted it through the formula territory + linguistic forms + people. As from the 1900s onwards (Maier, 1993; Moriyama, 2005), the period from the late 1960s until the early 1990s became one where this formula was re-used and re-circulated and where diversity management continued on a massive scale, most commonly within everexpanding education, media, and bureaucratic infrastructures (Goebel, 2015). In Java, and many of Indonesia’s islands, a pure standard version of Indonesian (bahasa baku) was taught and linked with inter-ethnic communication, the nation, knowledge, power, and appropriate behaviour (Errington, 2000; Goebel, 2015). In Java, and much less so in the other Indonesian islands, regional languages (bahasa daerah) were standardized and taught from primary school onwards, often with very patchy success because of poor resourcing (Bjork, 2005; Kurniasih, 2007; Sudarkam Mertono, 2014). Despite these sustained efforts in the area of language planning, everyday language practices in inter-ethnic and other encounters were quite different to the national narrative that Indonesian was the primary means of communication among a nation of citizens from diverse backgrounds. Example 1 was recorded in 1996 and is taken from a monthly women’s meeting in an ethnically diverse middle class city neighbourhood located in Semarang, Central Java. At this meeting six of the thirteen participants are not Javanese.
Example 1: A public address in an inter-ethnic meeting bu tobing kui lho, ditarik wong kan ngga
That Mrs. Tobing, [if] asked [for
pernah ketemu yo, ndeweké karepé kih,
contributions] by someone, right? [She]
lepas ngono lho, soko tanggung jawab rt,
can never be found, yeah her wish is to let
iki ndeweké kih emoh.
go you know, of neighbourhood responsibilities, [she] doesn’t want to.
As can be seen, this public address by the ward head, Mrs. Naryono, contains much Javanese (bold). Part of the reason for this was the need to pursue and maintain convivial social relations with neighbours. Using Indonesian often worked against the building and maintenance of positive social relations in this and other neighbourhoods in Semarang. Some neighbours were socially ostracized, and in some cases verbally threatened with violence, for 6
not adopting local ways of interacting, including a need to speak fragments of Javanese in inter-ethnic encounters (Goebel, 2009, 2010a, 2014b).
PROFIT AND CHANGING CONCEPTIONS OF LANGUAGE In addition to differing from actual everyday communicative practices, conceptualizations of language as pure, unitary, and immobile or anchored to a territory also started to be challenged in the early 1990s through a deregulated television industry’s search for profit. To brutally summarize this period, market forces in the area of television production and consumption helped usher in period where the representation of ethnic-ness became highly profitable because of its ability to attract wider and niche audiences and ultimately potential consumers of the products advertised during these broadcasts (Goebel, 2008; Kitley, 2000; Loven, 2008; Sen & Hill, 2000). To engender a sense of ethnic-ness most of these television representations typically only used just enough emblems of ethnicity and fragments stereotypical of a particular ethnic language to engender a sense of ethnic-ness. By 2009 this practice of representing fragments of ethnic languages could be found in almost all television genres, including children’s shows, quiz shows, celebrity gossip shows, soaps, local language news service, and so on (Goebel, 2015). Example 2 is taken from the comedy OB Shift 2 “Office Boy Shift 2” broadcast on RCTI in August 2009. This example is of representations of talk between those of different ethnolinguistic backgrounds in an urban Jakartan office (Sundanese is in bold caps and Betawi is in small caps). Note that in this comedy characters are represented as understanding one other, despite their use of ethnic languages instead of Indonesian (plain font).
Example 2: Representations of inter-ethnic talk on television Susi: a ha ha (slaps Ipul on the arm) kebetulan LU
datang ha, gantiin GUÉ ya
A [here is someone to take my place] as it happens YOU have come by, replace ME yeah!
Ipul:
Eh, gantiin NAON TEH
Eh replace WHAT OLDER SISTER?
Susi: ndak jangan kebanyakan nanya (while
Stop, don’t ask too many questions.
grabbing shirt and moving around Ipul and
Now, YOU just stay here, stand here,
pushing him in front of toilet door) nah LU
OK? Later, if for example a woman
diam aja di sini, berdiri di sini, ya, ntar
7
kalau misalnya ada cewek yang mau
comes to use the toilet, don’t let
masuk, jangan dikasih, ngerti KAGAK, ya
them in.
itu pun kalau LU KAGAK mau dimarahin,
Understand or NOT?
ngerti nggak
That is if YOU DON’T want to get in trouble. [Do you] understand or not?
Ipul:
YES, YES, OK, YES.
ENYA ENYA ATUH ENYA
Example 3 is taken from the quiz show Siapa Lebih Berani (Who is Braver) which was aired on RCTI to a national audience. During the two episodes that I have footage of, the two hosts (Helmy and Alya) moved between using fragments of Betawi/Jakartan forms of reference (gué “I/me and lu “you”), Sundanese terms of references (neng “younger unmarried woman”, teteh “older sister”), invitation (mangga “please go ahead”), and descriptions of cultural practices (munjungan “description of a greeting practice”), and as in Example 3, a Javanese interrogative (sopo “who”). In example 3, one contestant, Agus, presses the buzzer and the following interaction ensues. Indonesian is in plain font and Javanese is in bold caps.
Example 3
I also know and can speak some Javanese
Agus:
mel lisen
Mel Lisen
Helmy:
mel salah
Mel is wrong.
Alya:
SOPO sih agus, melan SOPO
WHO do [you] think it is Agus? Melan WHO?
Helmy:
mel SOPO, ngerti bukan mel
Mel WHO? [I] understand,
shandy chintami sini aja sayang
It’s not Mel Shandy. Chintami come here please.
Source: Siapa Lebih Berani broadcast on RCTI, Tuesday 12 August 2009, (7–8 am)
What examples 2 and 3 show is that typically fragments of ethnic languages are used rather than whole sentences being spoken in ethnic languages (although there are some examples of this too, see: Goebel, 2015). The hosts talk suggests that they imagine their audience as having some familiarity with Betawi, Sundanese, and Javanese. This representation of addressing both a local audience (the contestants and studio audience) and a national one in Indonesian and fragments from a number of regional languages presents a model for the doing of unity in diversity that doesn’t exclusively involve Indonesian. Ultimately, these representations and example 1 start to challenges the long-running narrative about pure Indonesian being used in the media and inter-ethnically. 8
DECENTRALIZATION AND THE REVALUATION OF REGIONAL LANGUAGES In addition to the media industries’ challenges to the conceptualization of language as pure, unitary, and immobile or anchored to a territory, the value of Indonesian vis-à-vis regional languages became increasingly challenged through practices that emerged from 2001 onwards as part of ongoing political and fiscal decentralization. Since 1998 there has been significant social, economic, political and cultural change in Indonesia (e.g. Aspinall & Mietzner, 2010; Holtzappel & Ramstedt, 2009). Decentralization contributed to increases in the social value of ethnicity and ethnic languages in Indonesia (Davidson & Henley, 2007). For example, fragmentation and the remaking of internal political boundaries have often been justified through claims about linguistic and cultural authenticity (Aspinall, 2011; Davidson & Henley, 2007). As sociolinguistic research on contemporary language practices in Indonesia emerges, it seems that local institutions now have the resources and the political and constitutional support to further promote ethnic languages. This change in the social value of ethnic languages vis-à-vis Indonesian can be seen via increased discourses about entitlement and authenticity (Arps, 2010; Kurniasih, 2016; Zentz, 2015) and increases in the use of ethnic languages for political purposes (Donzelli, 2016; Harr, 2015; Kurniasih, 2016; Morin, 2016). Example 4, extracted from Harr (2015), demonstrates how fragments of a regional language are used at the beginning of a campaign speech by a candidate for the post of regent (head of a district) of Ende district in Flores, Eastern Indonesia in 2008. This interaction occurs after the candidate, who is currently the vice-regent, arrives late in a village in Ende. Indonesian is in plain font, and the local language, Lio, is in bold font.
Example 4: Mixing languages to get votes in Ende, Flores Vice regent:
Sore ini saya sudah di tiga tempat.
This afternoon, I’ve been to three places.
Neabuga aku mena Demulaka.
This morning, I was mena 1 Demulaka.
Audience:
Ghale.
Ghale 2.
Vice regent:
Ghale?
Ghale?
Saya melantik duapuluh-delapan
I installed twenty-eight members of the
orang Badan Permuyawaratan
Village Assembly.
Desa.
1 2
Mena is a locational/directional term. For an explanation of how this works see Harr (2015). Ghale is a locational/directional term. For an explanation of how this works see Harr (2015). 9
Audience:
Jam satu neanea.
At one o’clock this afternoon.
Ghale juga?
Ghale, too?
Lau!
Downriver!
While the vice regents efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, this example and the rest of his speech provide many examples of the use of what the vice regent thought were just enough Lio fragments to get the communicative job done. We also get to see how his audience reacted to these attempts, which in part might even provide some predictive power in relation to how he would ultimately fare in the political contest. Example 4 was of an everyday interactional practice in 2008 where enough-ness was common. While many of the language policy changes that occurred and were implemented at provincial and district level typically following the old unitary formula (Goebel, In press), there were increasing numbers of exceptions. Example 5, is from a paper by Goebel, Jukes and Morin (2016). It is a copy of the text found on the signage (Plate 1) sponsored by the city of Jayapura in Papua in mid-2015. This sign is meant to encourage youth to get an electronic identity card. This is done by involved members of a popular local soccer team and through the use of Papuan Malay (PM) mixed with Indonesian. In example 5, PM is in bold and Indonesian is in plain font.
Plate 1: Enough-ness in local government signs in Papua (photo by Izak Morin)
10
Example 5: Enough-ness at the city scale in Jayapura, Papua 1
Kalau ko Punya KTP-Elektronik
If you own an electronic ID card
2
Ko tra kosong
You are somebody
3
Ayo…! Urus tempo
Come [and] get one as quick as you can
Morin’s (2016) work shows that this use of PM is not an isolated case, but one that has emerged in a number of social domains since the early part of the new millennium, including films, television broadcasts, and the internet. We find similar examples of enough-ness in Tomohon city, located in Minahasa, North Sulawesi, as in Plate 2 which is extracted from Goebel, Jukes, and Morin (2016). Plate 2 is of a political campaign poster for Johny Runtuwene (‘Jonru’), a candidate running for the position of Mayor of Tomohon. The text in the campaign slogan Jonru adalah torang “Jonru is us” (see the top left hand corner) is a mix of two varieties, including the Indonesian copula adalah, and the Manado Malay (MM) first person inclusive pronoun, torang. This mixing helps select two audiences, those who can read Manado Malay, and those who can read Indonesian.
Figure 4: Enough-ness in Sulawesi (photograph by Anthony Jukes)
11
If we move to other social domains, we find many other contexts where ethnic languages and enough-ness are increasingly part of ideologies and everyday language practices, including teen literature (Djenar, 2015), the internet (Goebel, 2015; Manns & Musgrave, 2015), and on consumer goods (Cole, 2015). In contrast to ideologies about Indonesian as the language of the bureaucracy, fragments of ethnic languages are regularly used to help manage government employees in face-to-face interactions (Goebel, 2007, 2014a), and the use of regional languages within government offices are encouraged at provincial and district levels (Goebel, 2016; Kurniasih, 2016; Moriyama, 2012).
Conclusion This paper started with an examination of the ACARA content descriptions for Indonesian. I then went on to critique these descriptions by noting that although they mentioned variation and even regional languages, they conceptualized language from a quite outdated nation-state perspective which viewed language as pure and unchanging. Drawing on empirical data, I demonstrated that a far more common practice was the use of just enough linguistic and other semiotic fragments from multiple languages to get a particular communicative job done. In doing so, I also showed how regional languages had become increasingly valuable vis-à-vis Indonesian over the last fifteen years or so. While incorporating insights from sociolinguistic research is consistent with broader communicative and post-communicative approaches to language program design (e.g. Kramsch, 1993, 2006; Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008; Liddicoat, 1997; Lo Bianco, Liddicoat, & Crozet, 1999; Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan, & Street, 2000; Stern, 1992), in the case of contemporary Indonesia the research base has grown slowly. Collaboration between a new international network of scholars working on language in Indonesia (e.g. the special issue introduced by Goebel, Cole, et al., 2016) and language educators could be a first step towards moving current conceptualizations of language, as exemplified in ACARA language descriptions, towards more empirically based conceptualizations of language.
Notes 1. Both sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology are broad and overlapping fields with some equating one with the other. Discussions about the finer distinctions can be found in a 2008 special issue of the journal of sociolinguistics (Bucholtz & Hall, 2008; Eckert, 2008; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz, 2008; Heller, 2008; Rampton, 2008; Sidnell, 2008; Woolard, 2008). 12
References ACARA. 2016a. Languages / Indonesian / Years F–10 Sequence / Years 5 and 6 / Understanding / Role of language and culture / ACLINU051, Content Description. Retrieved 15 March 2016, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum/contentdescription/ACLINU051 ACARA. 2016b. Years 9 and 10 / Understanding / Language variation and change / ACLINU083, Content Description Retrieved 15 March 2016, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum/contentdescription/ACLINU083 ACARA. 2016c. Years 9 and 10 / Understanding / Role of language and culture / ACLINU085, Content Description. Retrieved 15 March 2016, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/curriculum/contentdescription/ACLINU085 Agha, A. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alisjahbana, S. T. 1976. Language planning for modernization: The case of Indonesian and Malaysian. The Hague: Mouton and Co. Alvarez-Cáccamo, C. 1998. From 'switching code' to code-switching. In P. Auer (Ed), Codeswitching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity, 29-48. New York: Routledge. Arps, B. 2010. Terwujudnya Bahasa Using di Banyuwangi dan peranan media elektronik di dalamnya (selayang padang, 1970-2009). In M. Moriyama & M. Budiman (Eds), Geliat bahasa selaras zaman: perubahan bahasa-bahasa di Indonesia pasca-orde baru, 225-248. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Aspinall, E. 2011. Democratization and ethnic politics in Indonesia: nine thesis. Journal of East Asian Studies, 11, 289-319. Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (Eds). 2010. Problems of democratisation in Indonesia: elections, institutions and society. Singapore: ISEAS.
13
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. 2003. Voices of modernity: language ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bjork, C. 2005. Indonesian education: Teachers, schools, and central bureaucracy. New York: Routledge. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. 2014. Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds). New York: Springer. Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. 2011. Repertoires revisited: 'knowing language' in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 67, 1-26. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13, 2, 1-21. Blommaert, J., & Varis, P. 2011. Enough is enough: the heuristics of authenticity in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 76 (London, Albany, Gent, Tilburg) [Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 2, Tilburg University]. Booth, A. 1998. The Indonesian economy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: a history of missed opportunities. New York: St. Martin's Press in association with the Australian National University, Canberra. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. 2008. All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 401-431. Cole, D. 2015. The material force of signs and the reconfigurement of superdiverse identities. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 149. Dardjowidjojo, S. 1998. Strategies for a successful national language policy: The Indonesian case. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 130, 35-47.
14
Davidson, J., & Henley, D. (Eds). 2007. The revival of tradition in Indonesian politics: the deployment of adat from colonialism to indigenism. London: Routledge. Dick, H. (Ed). 2002. The emergence of a national economy: an economic history of Indonesia, 1800-2000 Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Djenar, D. N. 2015. Adolescent interaction, local language and peripherality in teen fiction. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 155. Donzelli, A. 2016. Crossover politics: spatiotemporal images of the nation-state and the vintage aesthetics of the margins in post-Suharto political oratory. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 158. Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 453-476. Errington, J. 2000. Indonesian('s) authority. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (Advanced Seminar Series), 205-227 Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research. Errington, J. 2001. Colonial linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 19-39. Gal, S., & Woolard, K. (Eds). 2001. Languages and publics: The making of authority. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging: language, bilingualism and education. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Goebel, Z. 2007. Enregisterment and appropriation in Javanese-Indonesian bilingual talk. Language in Society, 36, 4, 511-531. Goebel, Z. 2008. Enregistering, authorizing and denaturalizing identity in Indonesia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 18, 1, 46-61. Goebel, Z. 2009. Semiosis, interaction and ethnicity in urban Java. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13, 4, 499-523.
15
Goebel, Z. 2010a. Identity and social conduct in a transient multilingual setting. Language in Society, 39, 2, 203-240. Goebel, Z. 2010b. Language, migration and identity: neighborhood talk in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goebel, Z. 2013. Competence to comprehend and knowledging. Language & Communication, 33, 4, 366-375. Goebel, Z. 2014a. Doing leadership through signswitching in the Indonesian bureaucracy. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 24, 2, 193-215. Goebel, Z. 2014b. Stigmatising others through neighbourhood talk in Indonesia. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 11, 1, 1-20. Goebel, Z. 2015. Language and superdiversity: Indonesians knowledging at home and abroad. New York: Oxford University Press. Goebel, Z. 2016. Infrastructures for ethnicity: understanding the diversification of contemporary Indonesia. Asian Ethnicity. doi: 10.1080/14631369.2016.1146985 Goebel, Z. In press. Superdiversity from within: The case of ethnicity in Indonesia. In K. Arnaut, M. S. Karrebæk, & M. Spotti (Eds), Engaging superdiversity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Goebel, Z., Cole, D., & Manns, H. 2016. Theorizing semiotic complexity: Contact registers and scalar shifters. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 161. Goebel, Z., Jukes, A., & Morin, I. 2016. Linguistic enfranchisement. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number ? Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. 2008. Studying language, culture, and society: Sociolinguistics or linguistic anthropology? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 532-545. Harr, A. 2015. Recentering the margins? The politics of local language in a decentralizing Indonesia. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 152.
16
Heller, M. 2007. Bilingualism as ideology and practice. In M. Heller (Ed), Bilingualism: a social approach, 1-22. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Heller, M. 2008. Language and the nation-state: Challenges to sociolinguistic theory and practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 504-524. Heller, M., Bell, L., Daveluy, M., McLaughlin, M., & Noel, H. 2015. Sustaining the nation: the making and moving of language and nation. New York: Oxford University Press. Heller, M., & Duchêne, A. (Eds). 2012. Language in late capitalism: pride and profit. Hoboken: Routledge. Hobsbawm, E. 1992. Nations and nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holtzappel, C., & Ramstedt, M. (Eds). 2009. Decentralization and regional autonomy in Indonesia: implementation and challenges. Singapore, Leiden: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies & International Institute for Asian Studies. Inoue, M. 2006. Vicarious language: gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Møller, J. S. 2011. Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13, 2, 22-37. Kelly-Holmes, H., & Mautner, G. (Eds). 2010. Language and the Market. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kitley, P. 2000. Television, nation, and culture in Indonesia. Athens: Ohio University Press. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. 2006. From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 2, 249-252.
17
Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. 2008. Language ecology in multilingual settings. towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29, 4, 645-671. Kroskrity, P. V. (Ed). 2000. Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Kurniasih, Y. 2007. Local content curriculum 1994: The teaching of Javanese in Yogyakarta schools. Paper presented at the First International Symposium on the Languages of Java (ISLOJ), 15-16 August, Graha Santika Hotel, Semarang, Indonesia. Kurniasih, Y. 2016. Local activism versus recentralization: the case of Javanese in municipal offices and schools in Central Java. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number ? Liddicoat, A. 1997. Everyday speech as culture: Implications for language teaching. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S Number 14, 55-70. Lo Bianco, J., Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (Eds). 1999. Striving for the third place: intercultural competence through language education. Melbourne: Language Australia. Loven, K. 2008. Watching Si Doel: television, language, and cultural identity in contemporary Indonesia. Leiden: KITLV Press. Maier, H. 1993. From heteroglossia to polyglossia: the creation of Malay and Dutch in the Indies. Indonesia, 56, October, 37-65. Manns, H., & Musgrave, S. 2015. On the Internet, no-one knows you’re from Suroboyo: Ethnic identity from the digital margins to the mainstream core. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 147. Morin, I. 2016. Marginalizing and revaluing Papuan Malay: the impact of politics, policy and technology in Indonesia. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, working paper number 159. Moriyama, M. 2005. Sundanese print culture and modernity in nineteenth-century West Java. Singapore: NUS Press.
18
Moriyama, M. 2012. Regional languages and decentralization in post-New Order Indonesia: the case of Sundanese. In K. Foulcher, M. Moriyama, & M. Budiman (Eds), Words in motion: language and discourse in post-New Order Indonesia, 82-100. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: language in the city. New York: Routledge. Pietikäinen, S., & Kelly-Holmes, H. 2013. Multilingualism and the Periphery. In S. Pietikäinen & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds), Multilingualism and the Periphery, 1-16. New York: Oxford University Press. Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, B. 1999. Styling the other: Introduction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 4, 421-427. doi: doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00088 Rampton, B. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rampton, B. 2008. Disciplinary mixing: Types and cases. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 525-531. Roberts, C. J., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S., & Street, B. 2000. Language Learners As Ethnographers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., & Kroskrity, P. (Eds). 1998. Language ideologies: Practice and theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Sen, K., & Hill, D. T. 2000. Media, culture and politics in Indonesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19
Sidnell, J. 2008. Alternate and complementary perspectives on language and social life: The organization of repair in two Caribbean communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 477-503. Sneddon, J. 2003. The Indonesian language: its history and role in modern society. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Stern, H. H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stoler, A. L. 1995. Capitalism and confrontation in Sumatra's plantation belt, 1870-1979 (2nd ed., with a new preface ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sudarkam Mertono. 2014. The decentralization of schooling in Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. PhD dissertion. Department of Asian Studies, La Trobe University, Melbourne. Truckenbrodt, A. 2015. What does Australian Curriculum Languages mean for tertiary language departments? Paper presented at the Languages and Cultures Network for Australian Universities Colloqium, Maquarie University, Sydney, 25-27 November. Wallerstein, I. 2004. World-Systems analysis: an introduction. Durham: Duke University Press. Woolard, K. 2008. Why dat now?: Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12, 4, 432-452. Wortham, S. 2006. Learning identity: the joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zentz, L. 2015. Moving languages: syncretism and shift in Central Java. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies (Working paper no. 141).
20
