LANGUAGE POLICY OF BILINGUAL
FAMILY TOWARDS CHILDREN’S WORDS
PRODUCTION
A Thesis
By:
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu
8106111054
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
LANGUAGE POLICY OF BILINGUAL
FAMILY TOWARDS CHILDREN’S WORDS
PRODUCTION
A Thesis
By:
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu
8106111054
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program to Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Humaniora
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ABSTRACT
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu, 2013. Language Policy of Bilingual Family towards Children’s Words Production. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistic Study Program. Postgraduate School. State University of Medan.
The objectives of this study are to investigate the way the bilingual families decide their own language policy through the components of language policy, the way the parents apply language policy to succeed their children words production, and to find out the factors why the parents apply the language policy the way they are. This research applied qualitative approach by phenomenology term through
observation, questionnaire and in – depth interview. The data were collected from
ABSTRAK
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu, 2013. Kebijakan Bahasa oleh Keluarga Bilingual dan Kaitannya terhadap Produksi Bahasa Anak. Tesis. Program Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Sekolah Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Negeri Medan.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui cara keluarga-keluarga bilingual memutuskan penggunaan bahasa mereka sendiri melalui komponen-komponen kebijakan bahasa, cara para orangtua menerapkan kebijakan bahasa untuk menyukseskan produksi bahasa anak mereka dan meneliti mengapa para orangtua menerapkan kebijakan bahasa dengan cara mereka. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan pendekatan kualitatif dengan menganalisis phenomena kebijakan penggunaan bahasa oleh keluarga bilingual melalui observasi, kuesioner dan wawancara mendalam. Data dikumpulkan dari keluarga bilingual yang berasal dari latar belakang pendidikan yang berbeda yaitu orangtua dengan latar belakang pendidikan rendah, orang tua dengan latar belakang pendidikan menengah dan orangtua dengan latar belakang pendidikan tinggi. Temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa keluarga bilingual menggunakan komponen-komponen kebijakan bahasa yaitu ideologi bahasa, praktek bahasa dan manajemen bahasa. Hampir semua orangtua mempertimbangkan ideologi dan manajemen bahasa mereka. Sebaliknya, praktek bahasa tidak diterapkan oleh mereka dengan baik, hal
ini dapat dilihat melalui bahasa yang anak – anak mereka gunakan akan berbeda
dengan apa yang orangtua mereka harapkan. Kebijakan bahasa diterapkan dalam keluarga dengan mempraktekkan bahasa itu secara langsung. Ada beberapa pengaruh yang membuat orangtua mempraktekkan bahasa secara langsung, yaitu:
pengaruh – pengaruh dari luar rumah dan tidak adanya keseimbangan bimbingan
praktek bahasa antara ayah dan ibu. Faktor – faktor yang mendukung orangtua
dalam melakukan kebijakan bahasa adalah perkawinan campuran,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, praise and thank to Jesus Christ and Holy Mary for all
blessings, who has granted countless opportunity, strength and acknowledge to the
writer so that she has been finally able to accomplish her thesis.
Then, the writer thanks to her first advisor Prof. Dr. Sumarsih, M. Pd. who
advice and comments her thesis. She owes a real debt of gratitude to her second
advisor, Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., for her encouragement, critism,
reviews, comments, suggestions and assistance which were extremely helpful.
Her warmly gratitude is extended to Prof. Amrin Saragih, M. A, Ph. D., Prof.
Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M. Pd., and Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd. as the
examiners who contribute constructive criticism and offer valuable contributions
and suggestions.
She would like to thank to all lectures of English Applied Linguistics
Program for the treasure of knowledge they have transferred to her during the
course of her study. In particular, she would like to thank Prof. Busmin Gurning,
M. Pd., Head of English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Anni Holila
Pulungan, M. Hum., Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program,
who offered many valuable ideas and helped sharpen her observation.
Then, she would like to express her sincere appreciation and love to her
parents for constant inspiration, guidance, unflagging love, and support
throughout her life. She is indebted to her beloved father P. Lumbanbatu, S. Pd.
thank to her beloved mother S. Sembiring, S. Pd. who always give her motivation,
prayer and love. Next, she owes her thanks to her sister Iin Inneke Lumbanbatu,
AMKeb. and Evlin Lumbanbatu and her younger brother Yuriko Lumbanbatu and
Jhon Kelpin Lumbanbatu who support her to finish this program.
Special thanks are extended to all families who have permit her to conduct the
research in their family and given their precious time to help her in collecting the
data.
Last but not the least, her heartfelt thanks also go to her best friend Kak Eka,
Kak Nova, Kak Canra, Kak Elvi, Mitha, Kak Febri Sinulingga, and Dian Silitonga
for their encouragement, friendship and cooperation during the academic years
and the completion of her thesis and also to all friends of intake IXX.
Finally, the writer realizes that this thesis is far from being perfect. Therefore,
she highly appreciates all constructive critics for its improvement.
Medan, January 31st, 2012
The writer,
Ira Maria Fran Lumbanbatu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... i
ABSTRACT ... iii
THE LIST OF TABLES ... vii
THE LIST OF FIGURE ... viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1The Background of the Study... 1
1.2The Problems of the Study... 4
1.3The Objectives of the Study... 5
1.4The Scope of the Study... 5
1.5The Significance of the Study... 5
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1Theoretical Framework... 7
2.2Language Policy... 8
2. 2. 1 Components of Language Policy of Speech Community...13
a. Language Ideology (Language Belief)... 13
b. Language Practice... 17
c. Language Management... 21
2.3Bilingual Family’s Language Policy... 24
2. 3. 1 Bilingual Family... 24
2. 3. 2 Family Language Policy... 27
2.4Children’s Words Production...... 32
2. 4. 1 Children and their Environment...32
2. 4. 2 Words Production of Children in Bilingual Family Environment... 34
2.5Previous Study ... 48
2.6Conceptual Framework ... 52
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1Research Design... 54
3.2The Location of the Study...54
3.3The Subject of the Study... 54
3.4The Technique of Collecting Data... 60
3.5The Instrument of Collecting Data... 60
3.6The Technique of Data Analysis...60
3.7The Trustworthiness of the Study... 61
3. 7. 1 Credibility... 61
3. 7. 2 Transferability... 62
3. 7. 3 Dependability... 62
3. 7. 4 Confirmability... 62
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS 4.1 Data Analysis...64
4. 1. 1 Process of Deciding Language Policy by Bilingual Family... 64
4. 1. 1. 2 Decision Result upon Language Policy Based on
Language Practice... 78
4. 1. 1. 3 Decision Result upon Language Policy Based on Language Management... 81
4. 1. 2 The Process of Applying Language Policy by Parents to Succedd Their Children Word’s Production...84
4. 1. 3 The Factors of Language Policy Use in Family... 88
4.2 Findings...91
4.3 Discussions...94
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1Conclusions...97
5.2Suggestions...97
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
Language is used by all communities for conveying many purposes that
they have in their mind. When the communication happens in a society, some
points that they need to consider are context, ability in speaking and meaning.
Context is an appropriate situation where the communication takes place to enable
language users put them selves in a good role when doing interaction in different
context. Context covers suitable time, appropriate language, participant involve in
the interaction and soon. Beside the context, the speaker should have skill of
making communication in different way. When the context has been understood,
the listeners can analyze the meaning that the speakers have expressed. Because
meaning has had a part for making the language users understand each other. The
three points above will decide weather the speakers have used their role well in
their communities or not. That is why language and language users (speakers and
listeners) are two things that support their function each other.
The discussion of language which is done automatically is focused on
where the language users live or it is often called as community. A group of
people who has communication generally is called as speech community. Speech
community is a group of people who communicate each other. Fishman (1972:
22) says that ‘A speech community may be as small as a single closed interaction
network, all of whose members regard each other in but a single capacity’. The
the community. Communities that are talking here are micro community and it
still has connection with macro community. ‘The interaction between the micro
and macro, between the local and the national, can operate in either direction.
Language planning activities which begin at the local level can come to influence
macro – level decision – making’ (Liddicoat and Baldauf, 2008: 3). Language
users who live in community where many people come from different language
background will use their home language. When the language users live together
with other people of language users of course they practice or use more than one
language. It can be bilingual community and multilingual community. But the
reality found, it is often in Indonesia when the community consists of hundred, the
combination of national language and tribal language will be used. This condition
is usually named as Bilingual.
The smallest community where the bilingual live is family. In this kind of
family, the language that family members use is as the family decision. Therefore
it could be found in one family that a certain language is used at home but it is not
used when they interact with the outsiders. This condition can be categorized as
language planning within small community that is family. ‘If language planning is
examined at the micro level of the individual family, then the issue becomes one
of investigating the causes and conditions whereby an individual or an individual
family changes, alters or modifies language within the home or in other domains’
(Laoire, 2005: 238).The first target of this policy is family’s descendant. In this
case are children in the family.
Children learn language naturally. It means that they have learned
that ‘Children are setting up representations of what they see and know’. They
have cared with what have happened around them, they study the language based
on what they see and know after they hear some words. The language is naturally
put in children’s mind due to the condition created by many people who are
speaking actively in their environment.
Language policy that is discussed here are the part of language planning.
According to Fishman (2006: 5), ‘Language planning is part of the total social
change (social planning) process whether as cause and/ or as effect. The social
change that is meant here is the changing of individual, local, regional and/ or
national levels’. In this case the changing focuses on the language that is used by
people that has planned by people who has planned it.
Spolsky (2004) has considered that there are three components of
language policy available in speech community namely language belief, language
practice and language management. Language belief is considered as the ideology
of the language it self. It is about value and status of the language in a community.
Then after the language users particularly the family have considered and decided
the language, the family will start on how the language can be practiced in the
family. The two points will be packaged as language management. In this part, the
family will start to arrange language planning through language management.
In the family, language policy is conducted through kinship system. So,
language used is decided by parents due to the benefit the family can gain. For the
is popular as language acquisition. Language acquisition of children will depend
on language policy that the parents have decided in the family.
Family in Indonesia consists of different ideology, different way of
practicing the language and different way of managing language in their family.
The success of children in using language can be decided by the way of their
parents in making language policy in their family. In this case, the writer focuses
on the way of parents as the good controller in their family particularly for their
children’s language. As the fact in Indonesia that there are many languages
precisely tribal language used by many tribes and it will result some confusions to
parents to make progress of their children’s language through what they have
believed in their ideology.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on background above, the problems are formulated as the following.
1) How do bilingual families decide their own language policy through the
components of language policy itself?
2) How do the parents apply language policy to succeed their children’s word
production?
3) Why do the parents of family apply their language policy the way they
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In line with the problems above, the objectives of this study are.
1. to identify how do bilingual families decide their own language policy
through the components of language policy itself.
2. to identify how the parents apply language policy to succeed their
children’s word production.
3. to identify why the parents use language policy the way they are.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
In this occasion, the writer discusses about family’s language policy
towards children’s words production. The writer will focus on family’s language
policy (language practices, language ideology and language management)
implementation and the impacts of this policy towards words production of
children of three to twelve years old.
1.5 The Significances of the Study
It is equated that valuable inputs can enrich the study on the development
of language planning especially in language policy. It is hoped that the findings
would have valuable contribution to the theoretical and practical aspects.
a. Theoretically, these findings can be made as guideline for families who are
interested in the process of giving some policies in their family language.
It will be also very useful for references in assisting or facilitating the
members of family in the process of applying language policy in their
a more in – depth study on language policy, by comparing the results of
this research, they can enrich the knowledge on language policy.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After deliberately analyzing the data, the conclusions are stated as follows:
1. Bilingual families have decided their own language policy through the
components of language policy. Mostly parents considered language
ideology and language management. Otherwise, language practice were
not applied by them completely, it can be seen through language that their
children use will be different with what the parents have expected.
2. Language policy is applied in the families by practicing the language
directly. There are some influences that make the parents practice the
language directly, namely: influences of outside home and there is no
balance guidance of practicing language to children between mother and
father in family.
3. Factors that support parents in conducting language policy are
intermarriage, maintaining the language particularly tribal language, the
position of language using in formal context such as school and the
position of language which is used in their environment.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the conclusions stated above, this study has some suggestions to
1. In relation to the findings in this study, it is suggested to the other
researcher to use language components of language policy in speech
community (Spolsky, 2004) in analyzing language policy since it can
be used for macro and micro level of community. It is also suggested
that the result will be different because the participants come from
English Program and if it is applied to other participants the answer
will be quite different.
2. It is suggested to parents:
a. In the family, where language ideology is considered. It is
suggested that the parents consider the ideology based on the
advantage of the language for children’s future.
b. In the family, when parents are practicing the language. It is
suggested to use language that has been chosen through
language ideology. It is useful for making children are not
confuse and avoid them for using code – switching.
c. Parent is suggested to do other strategies of language
management namely bringing the speaker of the target
language into the household and arranging for young children
to play with other children knowledge.
d. It is suggested that families should be aware of the language
REFERENCES
Bhatia and Ritchie. The Handbook of Bilingualism. 2004. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
Brown and Ganguly. 2003. Fighting Words (Language Policy and Ethnic Relations in Asia). Massachusetts: Harvard University Cambridge.
Cantone, F. Katja. Code – Switching in Bilingual Children. 2007. Netherlands:
Springer.
Clark, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2003. New York: Cambridge University Press
_____, Eve. First Language Acquisition. 2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, W. J. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Prentice Hall: Ohio.
Fishman, Josua A. Do not Leave Your Language Alone. 2006. London: Lawren Erlbaum Associates.
_______, Joshua A. The Sociology of Language. 1969. United States: Newbury House Publisher.
Gleason, and Ratner. Psycholinguistics. 1998. United States: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Gratz, Jen. The Impact of Parents’ Background on their Children’s Education.
2006. United States: Public Education for Public Good.
Haque, Shahzaman. 2011. Migrants Family Language Practices and Language
Policies in Finland. Journal of Applied Language Studies 5 (1), 49 – 64.
Kayam, Orly. 2012. Family Language Policy of the English Speaking Immigrant Community in Israel: Families with Young Children and their FLP Planning, Management, and Outcomes. International Journal of Linguistics 4 (4), 662-635.
King, A. Kendall. 2008. Family Language Policy. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (5), 907 – 922.
King and Fogle. Bilingual Parenting as Good Parenting: Parents’ Perspective on
Lee, Pei – Ying. 2009. Language Policy in Taiwan: Age as Factor of Second Language Acquisition. Thesis of Master of Arts. Chico: California State University.
Laoire, Ó Muiris. The Language Situation in Ireland. 2005. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, J. Antony. 2004. Language Policy and Methodology. International Journal of English Studies 4 (1), 153-171.
Liddicoat and Baldauf. 2008. Language Planning in Local Context: Agents, Contexts and Interaction. MPG Books 1 (1), 3 - 17
Lincoln and Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. Baverly Hills California: Sage Publication.
Luykx, Aurolyn. 2005. Children as Socializing Agents: Family Language Policy in Situations of Language Shift. Thesis of Bachelor Degree. Miami: University of Miami.
Ricento, Thomas. An Introduction to Language Policy. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2002. The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered Languages. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 4 (2), 194 – 212.
Schiffman, Harold F. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. 1996. London: Routledge
Schwartz, Mila.2012. Immigrant Parents’ and Teachers’ views on Bilingual
Preschool Language Policy. Language and Educations 5 (1), 1-22.
Scotton, Carol Myers. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingual. 2006. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
Simpson, Paul. Language, Ideology and Point of View. 1993. London: Routledge
Spolsky and Shohamy, The Languages of Israel Policy, Ideology and Practice. 1999. Great Britain: The Cromwell Press.
Spolsky, B. Language Policy. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Management. 2009. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
_______, B. Language Policy. 2005. Sommerville: Proceeding of the 4th
Thompson, Neil. Communication and Language. 2003. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Montgomery, Heather. An Introduction to Childhood. 2009. United Kingdom:
Wiley – Blackwell.
Mukhuba, Thisaphungo Theophilus. 2003. Bilingualism, Language Attitudes, Language Policy and Language Planning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Journal of Linguistics 3 (2), 268 – 278.
Noddings, Nel. Critical Lessons (What Our Schools Should Teach). 2006. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paauw, Scott. 2009. One Land, One Nation, One Language: An Analysis of Indonesia’s National Language Policy. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Science 5 (1), 2-16.
Patten, Alan. 2001. Political Theory and Language Policy. Sage Publications 29 (5), 691- 715.
Plüddemann, and friends. Language Policy Implementation and Language Vitality in Western Cape Primary School. 2004. Cape Town: PRAESA.
Poon, Y. K. Anita. 2004. Language Policy of Hong Kong: It’s Impact on
Language Education and Language Use in Post – Handover Hongkong.
Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities And Social Science 49 (1), 53-74
Sukumane, B. G. Joyce. 2000. Issues in Language Policy and Planning: The Case of Namibia. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 30 (2), 1- 10.
Liddicoat, Antony J. Language Policy and Methodology. Nathan: Universidad de Murcia.
Viljamaa, Sanna – Kaisa. Constructing Family Language Policy: A Case – study
Bilingual Family Language Policy. 2012. Thesis of Bachelor Degree.
Finland:University of Jyvaskyla Department of Languages English.
Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
