2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter I review theories that are used to support the analysis about the linguistic repertoire used by the teenager, young adult, and middle adult of a Dayak Ngaju family in Central . This part will be divided into two parts. The first is the review of related theories which consist of linguistic repertoire by Milroy and Milroy and code choice by Holmes. It also discusses supporting theories that consists of the theory of language and age, , Dayaknese language, and . The second part is the review of related studies. In this part, I use two studies done by the former researchers in the same field.

2.1 Review of Related Theories In this section, I will present the theory of linguistic repertoire and code choice and supporting theories that consists of the theory of language and age, Indonesian language, Dayaknese language, and Banjarese language.

2.1.1 Linguistic Repertoire Milroy and Milroy (1990), in the book of An Encyclopedia of Language edited by Collinge, write that linguistic repertoire is the spoken or written styles, which are available to a community, and the members of this community select the proper style to fulfill various communicative needs from the repertoire (pp.278-280). Crystal (1990) writes the following: repertoire (repertory) is “a term used in sociolinguistics to refer to range of languages or varieties of a language available for use by the speaker, each which enables him to perform a particular social role” (p.304). The term may also be applied collectively to the range of linguistic varieties within a speech community. By this definition, linguistic repertoire is the range of the linguistic varieties available to the speaker or the speech community to be used in certain contexts, which depend on the social factor; such as who they are talking to, the social context of the talk, and the function of the topic of the discussion.

7 Petra Christian University

Linguistic repertoire also always relates with bilingualism and multilingualism, which are the ability of someone speaking more than one language or code besides the mother tongue. It can happen when someone can speak other languages besides her/ his mother tongue, like in market or when they meet their friend in some place. They can use different languages/codes to their interlocutor. It shows they certainly master more than one language besides her/his mother tongue. Holmes (1992) stated that “in any community the distinguishable varieties (code) which available to use in different social context from a kind of repertoire of available options” (p.10). Therefore, the members of each community have their own distinctive varieties of language. People may select one variety from their linguistic repertoire while communicating to convey meanings. Crystal (1990) says that variety is”…a term used in sociolinguistic and stylistic to refer to any system of linguistic expression whose use is governed by situational variables” (p.372). Some linguists, according to him, define variety as “one kind of situational distinctive language, which is a specialized type of language use within a ” (p.372). Since certain variety is taken in the context of communication, it is important to understand the social factors influence the choice of the speaker.

2.1.2 Code Choice The circumstances of a bilingual and multilingual community influence the language use of the people where they acquire a number of languages in speech events for different purpose of talking (Holmes, 2001, p.73). A person who was born grew and socialized in a multilingual community in fact acquires a number of linguistic repertoires that he or she can use to communicate in a particular time of talking. Linguistic repertoire here refers to the total range of codes available to a bilingual, including his or her vernacular (Kachru, 1986, p.58). In any community, the distinguishable varieties or codes which are available for use in different social context form a kind of repertoire available option. It means that in every community there is a range of varieties from which people select according to the context in

8 Petra Christian University which they are communicating, while in monolingual communities these take the form of different styles and dialect (Holmes, 2001, p.6). Besides, Holmes also stated that certain social factors - who you are talking to, social context of the talk, the function and the topic of the discussion - turn out to be important in accounting for code choice in many different kinds of speech community (2001, p.21). The phenomenon of choosing and using a code in a multilingual community usually influence someone’s choice of language to be different from one another. Moreover, Holmes also explained that people may choose a particular variety or code to make them easier to discuss a particular topic, regardless of where they are speaking (p.25). For instance, at work, people often discuss work, using the language associated with this domain, rather than the language of the family domain. Furthermore, the social dimensions are also relevant in accounting for the choice of variety or code in a particular situation. When both participants share more than one variety, then other factors will contribute to the appropriate choice.

2.1.3. Language and Age There are other features of people’s speech which vary at different ages too. Not only pitch, but vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar can also differentiate age groups. Holmes (2001) assumes the extensive swear word vocabulary which some teenagers use is likely to change over time. Slang is another area of vocabulary which reflects a person’s age. Current slang is the linguistic prerogative of teenagers and generally sounds odd in the mouth of an older person. It signals membership of a particular group- the teenager. In New Zealand teenagers currently use the term wicked, choice, and cool to describe something they approve of. Social dialect research has provided a great deal of information about pattern of pronunciation and grammar for different age groups. The relative frequency of vernacular is formed in different age group. They are high in childhood and adolescence, and then steadily reduce as people approach middle age when societal pressure to conform are greatest. Vernacular usage gradually increases again in old age as social pressure

9 Petra Christian University

reduce, with people moving out of the work force and into a more relaxed phase of their lives and the use of standard or prestige form peaks between the ages of 30-55 when people experience maximum societal pressure to conform (pp.168-169). That theory of age helps the writer to analyze the factor that influences the Ngaju Dayaknese people to choose the language that they use in conversation, for instance, the teenager and the middle adult Ngaju Dayaknese people use the vernacular language more often than the young adult Ngaju Dayaknese people.

2.1.4. Indonesian Language Indonesian language is a language that has a place as the national and in (Wiryanti, S., 1993, p.1). It was confirmed in the part of oath known as the Youth Pledge taken by Indonesian Youth on 28 October 1928. The third part of the oath was “We, the sons and daughters of Indonesia uphold as the language of unity, the Indonesian language”. When Indonesia proclaimed its independence in 1945, Indonesia language was the country’s only language that fulfilled the requirements of a national language. Indonesian is a standard language and can be used as a medium of communication in every field; Indonesian language can be used to communicate about politics, economic, cultural, education, science, technology, and community organization. As a linguistic symbol for the Indonesian nation, the language also betokens the unification of diverse ethnic groups with varying socio-cultural background: it helps distinguishing the national identity from all others. This includes its main role as the official state language, its use in inter- regional and inter-cultural communication in Indonesia, and its functions as the language of modern science and technology and also in formal situation (kemendiknas.go.id). The writer uses this explanation to support her analysis about the uses of Indonesia language by the Ngaju Dayaknese people in their domains. This theory also uses to support the writer’s analysis.

10 Petra Christian University

2.1.5. Dayaknese Language Indigenous people in are Dayaknese who use Ngaju Dayaknese language as their (Riwut, Riwut, and Mantikei, 2009, p.14). Dayak Ngaju is one of major tribes in Central Kalimantan. Ngaju Dayaknese language is the language which is used by most of Dayaknese people in Central Kalimantan. This language has some names based on the location. Most of the native dayaknese who were born and stay along the Kapuas River called this language Kapuas language, so do the people who stay along the Kahayan River. They called Ngaju Dayaknese language Kahayan language, whereas those who have travelled to Kapuas and Kahayan called Ngaju Dayaknese language (Andianto, et al, 1987, as cited in Iper, et al, 1994, p.15). In the casual conversation between the tribes and in the family talk, for example, Ngaju Dayaknese language is often used. The government officials also use Ngaju Dayaknese language as the their language when giving information in villages. Even in the church, Ngaju Dayaknese language is used (Santoso, 1985, p.2)

2.1.6. Banjarese Language Banjarese language is the native language used by the Banjarese people of , Indonesia. As many Banjarese are travelling merchants, they bring their language wherever they go all over Indonesia, even all over the world. Especially in the island of Kalimantan, Banjarese can be considered as a lingua franca, as it is used widely in three of the four of Kalimantan: South Kalimantan, , and Central Kalimantan, with the exception of where Malay is more popular. Though large numbers of Banjarese also moved to eastern coast of Sumatra and to the various part of Java, most Banjarese preferred to stay in Borneo (Kalimantan). Many Banjarese settled along the Barito River in Northern Borneo, and mixed with the Manyaan and Ngaju Dayaknese (Magenda, 2010, p.13)

11 Petra Christian University

By using the theories, I will classify the linguistic repertoire by the teenager, young adult, and middle adult in a Ngaju Dayaknese family. I also analyze the linguistic repertoire based on their age, so that I use the language and age theory in my research.

2.2 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

2.2.1 The Linguistic Repertoire of a Kutainese man at Singgahan of Subvillage of Pelem Village, Pare-Kediri (Kristi, 2006) In this study she talked about linguistic repertoire of a Kutainese man at Singgahan of Subvillage of Pelem Village, Pare-Kediri in order to see the linguistic repertoire of the subject and the reason behind the language choice of the subject for one domain. He tried to find out (1) the varieties that the man uses; (2) the varieties in 3 domains, namely family, education, and friendship that he uses, and (3) the reasons he uses such a linguistic repertoire. He used the theory of the linguistic repertoire proposed by Kachru (1982), varieties proposed by Holmes (2001), domain proposed by Holmes (2001). The subject that he used in this research is a Kutainese man who lives in Singgahan Subvillage. He came to Singgahan in 1976 and set up FEC (Fundamental English Course). He teaches in the institution and as a principal, he supervises more than 600 FEC’s students at that time. He has married to a local Javanese woman. In this research the writer used qualitative approach in collecting the data; his study includes observation and interviews. From the study, he found that linguistic repertoire of Mr. Arif as the subject was English, Indonesian, and Javanese krama in education domain. Mr. Arif used most of his varieties of linguistic repertoire in family domain. He used Javanese karma, Indonesia, English, and Kutainese varieties in this domain. Friendship was the domain where Mr. Arif could use distinct variety compared to other domain. Three varieties were used by him. There were Javanese ngoko, Indonesian, and English.

12 Petra Christian University

The similarity is the object of observation that is linguistic repertoire. It means both Kristi and I observe the linguistic variation of the speech community. The previous study was conducted to a man who migranted in a Javanese community, while this study is conducted in a Ngaju Dayaknese family. However the difference is the social factors. Here I use age as my social factor to reveal the linguistic repertoire, because I carried out the research in a family. Meanwhile, the previous study used domains of language use as the social factor. Though the way the previous study is carried out differs from how this study is done, still the previous study contributes me the more understanding in collecting data so that the linguistic repertoire of a speech community is revealed.

2.3.2 A Study of Linguistic Repertoire and the Domains of Language Use of the Second and the Third Generation of totok Chinese Family (Pujianto, 2006) This student’s paper talked about linguistic repertoire and domains of language use in order to see the linguistic repertoire of each subject and the reason behind the language choice of the subject for one domain. She tried to find out (1) the linguistic repertoire of the father, (2) the domain he uses each of varieties, (3) the linguistic repertoire of the mother, (4) the domain she uses each of varieties, (5) the linguistic repertoire of the first daughter, and (6) the domain she uses each of varieties. She used the theory of the domains of language use proposed by Holmes (1992) and linguistic repertoire use proposed by Milroy and Milroy (1990). Domains of language use are determined by participant as social factor. The subject that she used is a totok Chinese family in Malang. They are the second and the third generation of a totok Chinese family. In this research, the writer used qualitative approach in collecting the data; her study includes observation and interviews. From the study, she found that linguistic repertoire of the father was Mandarin, , Javanese, and Indonesian. He converses in Mandarin when he gathers with his Chinese friends and when he talks with his wife. He can speak

13 Petra Christian University

Hokkien dialect with his family from China. He combines informal Indonesian and Javanese when he speaks with his employees and for daily interaction with Javanese. Furthermore, the linguistic repertoire of the mother was Indonesia, Javanese, Mandarin, and Hokkien. She communicates with Indonesian and Javanese the most. She communicates Indonesian and Javanese to her maids at home, her employees, her drivers, her children, and also to the people who do not understand Mandarin. She uses Mandarin with her husband, relatives, and friends. She rarely practices Hokkien. Finally, the linguistic repertoire of the first daughter was Indonesia, Javanese, English and Mandarin. She uses Indonesian to communicate with everybody. She is a passive user of Mandarin. She usually uses English most of the time in class. The similarity is the object of observation that is linguistic repertoire. It means both Pujianto and I observe the linguistic variation of a speech community. The previous study is done among totok Chinese community, while this study is done among Ngaju Dayaknese community in Central Kalimantan. What makes the difference is the social factor. The previous study used participant as her social factor, whereas I use age as my social factor. I use this study to support my study because the writer here made the research about the linguistic repertoire, and from the previous study, I also learn how to collect the data from the Ngaju Dayaknese family as my subject.

14 Petra Christian University