CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
B. Theoretical Background
4. Language and Ideology
40 which linguistic system may be used to symbolize the underlying changing nature of that exchange, (Watts, 2005: 58).
The researcher will improve whether in ego’s standing the participant is truly being polite or being politic (enhance (filming), arrogant, plain or indeed lie; enggih-enggih nenten kepanggih agree with other’s order but doesn’t do anything) in culture values context. In other cultures, however, the rule will be less constitution and more regulative, i. e., participants in verbal interaction must decide how they wish to treat their own and their addressee’s social person in order to judge the appropriateness of the explicit verbal display, (Watts, 2005: 61).
41 unliving thing. The idea construction is declared through the speech level or the language construction. The construction between idea and language cannot be separated. Idea of the society which constructed and accepted with all members of society will be an ideology of society and declared through language. These constructions influenced the variation of culture in ideas about language and about how communication works as a social process from language.
Woolard (1998: 3), stated “language ideology is of anthropological important not simply because of its ethnographic variability but because it is a mediating link between social form and form of talk. _ Ideology of language are not about language alone. Rather, they envision and enact ties of language identities, aesthetics, to morality, and to epistemology”.
He also said that the links of ideology and language are underpin not only linguistic form and use but also the very notion of the person and the social group, as well as such fundamental social institutions as religious ritual, child socialization, gender relations, the nation-state, schooling, and law, (Woolard, 1998:3). Woolard has quoted Rumsey’s statement of language ideology such as “share bodies commonsense about the nature of the language in the world, (Rumsey, 1990: 346)”.
The statements above emphasize the linguistic structure on the activist nature of ideology. Silverstein defined linguistic ideology as “set of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use,” (1979:193). Another
42 definition of language ideology said “self-evident ideas and objectives a group of holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of the group,” (Heath.
1989:53). Language ideology also defined based on culture system as
“the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interest,” (1989: 255).
Language ideology applied in language research, it has been conducted in dominant view of American anthropology and linguistics has long cast ideology as a somewhat unfortunate, though perhaps social culturally interesting, distraction from primary and thus “real” linguistic data. Franz Boas (1911) stated that “language is a culture system whose primary structure is little influenced by secondary rationalizations and so is an exemplary target of analysis. Leonard Bloomfield (1944) is an American structural linguist, “actually gave considerable attention to speakers evaluation of form. Modern linguistics in the Bloomfieldian tradition has generally assumed that linguistic ideology and prescriptive norms have little significant-or, paradoxically, only pervious-effect on speech form.
Michael Silverstein (1985: 220) has argued that a grasp of language ideology is essential to understanding the evolution of linguistic structure.
“Total linguistic fact, the datum for a science of language, is irreducibly dialectic in nature. It is unstable mutual interaction of meaningful sign forms contextualized of interested human use mediated by the fact of cultural ideology”. He has conducted his research for Javanese speech
43 level. He has shown that ideology, understood as rationalization, not only explains but actually affects linguistic structure, “rationalizing” it, often by making it more regular, (Michael Silverstein, 1970, 1985).
Woolard (1998: 12) stated “ideology thus constitutes an essential moment of phenomena of analytical linguistic charge. Ideology tenets are derived from some aspect of experience and then generalized beyond that core and secondarily imposed on a broader category of phenomenon; this broader category then undergoes restructuring”. Structure conditions ideology which then reinforces and expands the original structure that distorts language in the same of making it more like itself (Bourdieu.1991).
Rumsey (1990: 357) stated “language structure and language ideology are not entirely independent of each other, nor is either determined entirely by the other. Instead the structure provides formal kind categories that are particularly conducted to “miscognition”. And partly as a result of that miscognation, might not the linguistic system gradually change so as to approximate that for which it was miscognized.
The important linguistic structure and ideology structure can be set off by such ideology interpretation of language structure in-use. They are derived only from a larger social dialectic. Such changes are likely to take an unintended direction, as exemplified in the historical case of second-person pronoun alternation in English by Silverstein (1985). In the seventeenth century, Quakers insisted on use of “thou” forms for thesecond-person singular address. Rationalizing this usage according to
44 the emerging linguistic of the time as more truthful because faithful to numerical realities of the objective world. This practice, soon secondarily ideologized by the larger society as an index of stigmatized Quarters identity, set off a backlash movement away from any productive uses of
“thou” by that larger community. A shift to “you” was completed by 1700 (Silverstein. 1985: 246).
Errington (1988) observed the standard in sociolinguistic analysis to look for relations between structural change and communicative function.
It is more controversial to invoke a notion of native speaker awareness as an explanatory link. As Irvine (1989), has pointed out, Labovian corelational sociolinguistics suggests a direct relation between linguistic and social differentiation. Indonesian speech level, Errington developed the notion of pragmatic silence -”native speakers” awareness of the social significant of different leveled linguistic alternants, ”(1985: 294-95). More
“pragmatically salient” classes of variables are more susceptible to rationalization and strategic use, being (mis) recognized by speakers as more crucial linguistic mediators of social relation (see especially Silverstein 1979, 1981, 1985, 1987). Irvine comments: “many writers ... in linguistics and the social sciences … have assumed that referential communication is the only function of language,” (1989:259, see also Briggs 1986, Reddy, 1979).
Silverstein has been understood by some to suggest that this Western objectifying drive for reference and a focus on the surface
45 segmentable aspects of referentially evaluated language is a nearly universal phenomenon. More accurately, Silverstein’s claim is that the referential structure is universally a structuring condition of the conscious of pragmatic functions. Rationalization as counts people devise to explain language beyond that vary widely, from reference in our own tradition to fully pragmatic theories for Javanese; which drive the power of language from theories of interaction. Irvine similarly turns a comparison of Wolof and Javanese ideologies of honorification to reconsideration of professional linguistics ‘privileging of references through the construct of linguistic alternants as referentially “the same”. Rumesy (1990) has argued that the focus on lexical is not characteristic of Australian aboriginal cultural, which do not dichotomized talk and action or words and things.