Copyright

Jonas B. Wittke

2019

Abstract

Status Planning and Regional Identity: The Case of Osing in ,

by Jonas Wittke

Due to recent, state-sponsored status planning efforts, Osing (ISO 639-3: osi) is currently experiencing a renaissance, resulting in increased language use and the emergence of a new Osing identity. Osing has gained enough popularity in recent years that people of other (non-Osing) ethnicities have begun speaking the language and adopting Osing cultural practices (Arps, 2009: 10). Based on interview data, this research examines emergent regional identities of Banyuwangians and the results of the commodification of

Osing in the public sphere.

Indonesia has formally tasked local governments with promoting regional languages and cultures and to “create atmospheres conducive to speaking local languages, including the empowerment and establishment of local traditional institutions, in order to increase positive attitudes so that people have an awareness, pride, and loyalty to the local language norms.” (Yudhoyono, 2009: 17). Osing is recently taught alongside

Javanese and Indonesian in Banyuwangi schools (in all 25 kecamatan ‘districts’ as of

2017) and the local government recognizes Osing as a language distinct from and specific to Banyuwangi. Further, policymakers are embracing the opportunity to

promote Osing culture by organizing Osing-themed cultural events and festivals as well as promoting the village of Kemiren as “Desa Wisata Osing” (‘Osing Tourism Village’) and as an adat budaya ‘indigenous culture’ tourist destination. As the government promotes and culture—elements of which are valued as commodities for achieving “semua potensi yang ada di Banyuwangi” (‘the whole of Banyuwangi’s potential’) Banyuwangians have begun to identify as Osing.

This research finds that the social expansion of Osingness in recent years is reflected in speakers’ sociolinguistic identities: While “Osing” was primarily associated with an ethnicity as recently as 20 years ago, it now has a supra-ethnic, regional association with Banyuwangi at large. In interviews, consultants negotiate identities (their own and those of others)—determining who is and who is not Osing based on sociocultural factors and language ideologies—reflecting a very recent, state-sponsored recontextualization of Osingness.

Acknowledgments

During my first semester as a Ph.D. student in Linguistics at Rice, I approached my advisor (Dr. Robert Englebretson) with a question about whether to choose German or

Spanish to satisfy my foreign language requirement for the degree. (Both would have required a bit of “brushing up”.) His answer left me stunned, and I still remember daydreaming about it that afternoon. He said, “Both are fine choices! Or, you could throw a dart at a map, or pick any language in the world, because when else will you have a chance to do that? Oh, and if the dart lands on Indonesia, I can help you get started learning Indonesian.”

The following week, I picked up a copy of Beginning Indonesian Through Self-

Instruction (Wolff, Oetomo, & Fietkiewicz, 1992). Robert and I rehearsed dialogues from the book for the next three months. This dialogic approach to language learning was enjoyable and effective, and my minor achievements over those three months catapulted my interest in pursuing research in Indonesia. Robert has been a central figure in my life over the past five years, coaching me and trusting me to mature into the researcher, teacher, and linguist I am today. To my mentor and friend: Thanks for the darts!

Between 2014 and 2017 I received four scholarships related to my pursuit of fieldwork in Indonesia. The first two granted me opportunities to study Indonesian in an immersive setting; the third and fourth provided funding for field research. Working backward from most recent, I would like to thank the Wagoner Family (sponsors of the

Wagoner Foreign Study Fellowship) for providing the funds necessary for me to

vi complete my dissertation research in Indonesia in 2017; the Rice University Social

Sciences Research Institute for funding my first research trip in 2016; the Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State for the opportunity to participate in the Critical Language Scholarship program in Indonesia in 2015, and the

U.S. Department of Education for its Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship, which allowed me to participate in the Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2014. I wish to thank the many people involved with affording me these opportunities.

The biggest “Thank You” goes to the people of Banyuwangi for their generosity, hospitality, and kindheartedness. From the dozens of consultants I worked with to the village leaders who allowed me into their communities, each and every individual has treated me with respect and open arms. As it would be impossible to thank every single person individually, I would like to acknowledge my friend Pak Antariksawan Jusuf for his help and support, along with two other specific people who have played significant roles in my success. Pak Aekanu Hariyono, a true champion of Osing language and culture, provided my first introduction to Banyuwangi by inviting me to a festival on

August 15, 2015. Since then, he has been immeasurably helpful in granting me access to public festivals and private events, and has been the point of introduction for many other contacts in Banyuwangi. One such contact was Pak Hasnan Singodimayan, whom I first met the following day. Famous throughout Banyuwangi as its elder budayawan

(‘culturalist’), Pak Hasnan has provided a running commentary of sorts during my exploration of the social and linguistic landscape of Banyuwangi. Although I am grateful vii for all of their help, I am even more so grateful for their genuine friendship and brotherhood, which continues to this day.

Thank you to the entire Linguistics Department at Rice University, including all faculty, staff, and students past and present (you know who you are!); to the students of

LING 300 for an amazing semester and for claiming I look much younger than my years; to my former advisors Edith Moravcsik—especially for her continued support and friendship—and [the late] Mickey Noonan; to Mike Cullinane and the Center for

Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin Madison for awarding my

Honorary Fellowship in 2018; to Thomas Conners and Jozina Vander Klok for inviting me to join the organizing committee of the International Symposium on the Languages of

Java (ISLOJ); and to David Gil for inviting me to join the organizing committee of the

International Symposium on Malay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL).

A very special Thank You goes to dissertation committee members Nancy

Niedzielski and Kerry Ward, whose encouragement and support I will never forget.

Thank you both for the crucial roles you have played—and continue to play—in my success.

Thank you to my Mom, Dad, and brother, and to my extended and expanded family in

America and Indonesia, for helping me see this through.

And, lastly, thank you to my loving wife, to whom I dedicate this work.

Contents

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgments ...... v Contents...... viii List of Figures ...... xi List of Tables ...... xii Overview ...... 1 1.1. Indonesia ...... 3 1.1.1. Governance and administrative units ...... 5 1.1.1.1. Provinces, regencies, districts, cities, and villages ...... 5 1.1.1.2. Regional representative council(s) ...... 8 1.1.1.3. Ministries and departments...... 8 1.1.2. The linguistic ecology of Banyuwangi ...... 9 1.1.2.1. Language planning in Indonesia ...... 12 1.1.2.2. Present-day language planning in Banyuwangi ...... 13 1.1.2.3. Osing language and people ...... 15 1.2. Field research ...... 18 1.2.1. Research questions ...... 19 1.2.2. Data ...... 21 1.2.2.1. Conversation data ...... 21 1.2.2.2. Interviews ...... 22 1.2.2.3. Public performances ...... 24 Features of varieties of Osing and (Banyuwangi) Javanese ...... 27 2.1. Existing literature and prior research...... 28 2.1.1. Javanese ...... 31 2.1.2. Osing ...... 34 2.2. Analysis from conversation data ...... 39 2.2.1. Osing in desa Kemiren ...... 40 2.2.1.1. Phonology ...... 41 2.2.1.2. Lexical features ...... 47

ix

2.2.1.3. Morphosyntax ...... 48 2.2.1.4. Summary ...... 49 2.2.2. Osing in desa Tamansuruh ...... 50 2.2.2.1. Phonology ...... 50 2.2.2.2. Lexical features and morphosyntax ...... 53 2.2.3. Javanese in kecamatan Tegaldlimo ...... 54 2.3. Overview of Osing in public performances ...... 56 2.3.1. Phonology and hyper-use of phonological variables ...... 58 2.3.2. Lexical choice ...... 62 2.3.3. Morphosyntax ...... 63 2.4. Summary...... 64 Osing in the public sphere ...... 65 3.1. Vitalization and promotion ...... 66 3.2. Commodification and consumption ...... 69 3.3. Stylization ...... 74 3.3.1. “Wayang Osing” ...... 76 3.3.2. Kendhang Kempul ...... 79 3.3.3. “Festival Patrol” ...... 81 3.3.4. The spelling ‘Osing’ as a marker of identity...... 82 3.4. Summary...... 87 Ideology and Identity ...... 89 4.1. Ideologies ...... 91 4.2. Osing identities ...... 98 4.2.1. Negotiated identities ...... 101 4.2.2. Differentiating wong Osing and orang Osing ...... 104 4.3. Storied accounts ...... 108 4.3.1. Osing, past and present ...... 108 4.3.2. The Osing-ization of Banyuwangi ...... 113 4.4. Conclusion ...... 116 Conclusion ...... 118 5.1. Language planning: Implications ...... 119 x

5.2. Future research ...... 124 References ...... 126 Appendix A: Interview Questions ...... 138 Appendix B: Abbreviations and Glosses ...... 141 Appendix C: Discourse Transcription Conventions ...... 142

List of Figures

Figure 1: Indonesia. (Wikipedia contributors, 2009) ...... 4

Figure 2: “Location of East in Indonesia” (Wikipedia contributors, 2011) ...... 6

Figure 3: The kabupaten of and the kecamatan of Banyuwangi...... 10

Figure 4: Expansion of Mataram into Blambangan ...... 16

Figure 5: Map Task ...... 24

Figure 6: “The vowel system of central and east Javanese” (from Arps, 1992a)...... 32

Figure 7: : Kecamatan Glagah, Banyuwangi, & Rogojampi .. 68

Figure 8: dancer statue at Watu Dodol ...... 71

Figure 9: Visual indices of Osingness ...... 73

Figure 10: “Wayang Osing” scene from Inside Indonesia (Rosmasari, 2017)...... 77

Figure 11: Overhead signage, entry to desa Kemiren (pre-2017) ...... 83

Figure 12: Overhead signage, entry to desa Kemiren (2017) ...... 83

Figure 13: Self-identification of consultants ...... 100

Figure 14: “Variables affecting ethnolinguistic vitality” (Giles et al., 1977: 309)... 122

List of Tables

Table 1: Listings on official Banyuwangi festival calendars, by year...... 25

Table 2: Language-family relations of Indonesian, Javanese, and Osing ...... 29

Table 3: The six phonemes of Javanese and their ten allophones ...... 33

Table 4: East Javanese consonant phonemes ...... 34

Table 5: Palatalization percentages and proportions, desa Kemiren...... 44

Table 6: Patterns of diphthongization in Kemiren ...... 47

Table 7: Palatalization in desa Tamansuruh, compared with desa Kemiren ...... 51

Table 8: Patterns of diphthongization in Tamansuruh, compared with Kemiren ... 52

Table 9: Palatalization percentages and proportions, Tegaldlimo ...... 55

Table 10: Patterns of diphthongization in Tegaldlimo ...... 56

Table 11: Palatalization, “Lalare Osing” performance and conversation data ...... 59

Table 12: Diphthongization in Lalare Osing, Tamansuruh, and Kemiren ...... 61

Table 13: Two Javanese speech levels: “Did you take that much rice?” ...... 92

Table 14: Two Javanese speech levels: “Is this yours?” ...... 92

Chapter 1

Overview

This dissertation documents recent status planning efforts in Banyuwangi Regency (East

Java, Indonesia), examining recent impacts on language attitudes as observed through interviews. Osing is an under-documented language variety, and this empirical research makes a necessary contribution to the field of Austronesian linguistics, documenting the structure and use of Osing and its ongoing emergence as a high-status variety in the local multiglossic ecology of Banyuwangi while comparing and contrasting the features of everyday conversations with public perceptions of Osing. This research shows how regional status planning has contributed to an ideological shift in Banyuwangi and how

Osing is becoming recontextualized as a marker of Banyuwangi identity.

While Osing (ISO 639-3: osi) was primarily associated with ethnic-Osing

Banyuwangians as recently as 20 years ago, it now has a supra-ethnic, regional association with Banyuwangi at large, having gained enough popularity in recent years that people of other ethnicities are increasingly speaking it and adopting Osing cultural

2

practices (Arps, 2009). Today, speakers negotiate identities and identity categories (see

Chapter 4), determining who is and is not an ‘Osing person’—orang Osing (a term of

Indonesian origin) or wong Osing (a term from Javanese origin)—based on sociocultural factors and language ideologies.

There have been ongoing, grassroots efforts to preserve and promote Osing as the autochthonous language of Banyuwangi since the early 1970s (Arps, 2010: 227), when local language activists began to introduce Osing-language programs through radio stations in Banyuwangi. These efforts have since expanded into a truly region-wide, combined effort among local government, authors, culturalists, media, and businesses to promote Osing language and culture as the pride of Banyuwangi. Following Arps (2010)

I discuss the expansion of Osing from the 1970s to the present in Chapter 3.

The literature on language planning has long recognized the distinction and relationship between corpus planning and status planning. While the former refers to the development and codification of vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, the latter concerns defining the standing or prestige of a language with respect to other languages

(Cobarrubias, 1983: 42). Fishman (2004: 79) suggests that all language planning is in some way made possible by a (frequently hidden) status planning dimension, discussing the “unevenly elaborated” distribution of these terms:

3

“Language planning per se has been defined as ‘the authoritative societal assignment of scarce resources to language’. However, although this distinction is now half a century old it still remains unevenly elaborated. Status planning has received the lion’s share of attention since it is of greater popular interest, as well as of interest to social scientists (primarily political scientists and sociologists) who outnumber linguists by far.”

This current chapter situates the linguistic ecology of Banyuwangi within the larger context of language planning in Indonesia and introduces my research questions, methods, and data. Chapter 2 compares existing literature on Osing and structure and use with empirical research collected during my two field research trips to Banyuwangi. Chapter 3 digs deeper into the history of Osing in the public sphere, examining past and present-day efforts to promote Osing and the very recent expansion of Osing language and culture in Banyuwangi. Chapter 4 examines the emergent and narrative identities of individuals (as micro-level results of this expansion). I conclude in

Chapter 5 with a summary of this research, its implications for anthropological linguistics, and a look ahead toward future research as well as potential directions for continued corpus and status planning efforts in Banyuwangi.

1.1. Indonesia

Indonesia is the fourth-most populous country in the world, home to more than 250 million inhabitants and hundreds of language varieties. At over 735,000 square miles it is by far the largest country in in terms of landmass—nearly three times as large as second-largest Myanmar—and neighbors Malaysia, Papua , and East

Timor. 4

Figure 1: Indonesia. (Wikipedia contributors, 2009)

Estimates of the number of languages spoken in Indonesia range from 300 to 800, with most sources approximating roughly 700 languages. Because the population of Indonesia is spread across thousands of islands, there is distinct geographical separation among large numbers of people, who have—over thousands of years—evolved into hundreds of

“ethnic groups” (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Banyuwangi, 2011)1 speaking hundreds of language varieties. The Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian covers a majority of the Indonesian archipelago and includes the primary languages of my investigation: Indonesian, Javanese, and Osing. There are also hundreds of other, non-Malayo-Polynesian language varieties in Indonesia—particularly in

1 I use the term “ethnic group” following the groupings listed in Indonesian census data. 5

Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua and its surrounding islands—many of which remain un- or under-documented. However, as my current research is situated within the island of Java, I will not focus on other areas and language groups. (See Chapter 2 for more detailed discussion on the linguistic ecology of Java.)

The following sections discuss the governance and administrative units of

Indonesia (§1.1.1); the linguistic ecology of Banyuwangi (§1.1.2); and my field research and the data on which my analyses are based (§1.2).

1.1.1. Governance and administrative units

In this section, I introduce key (Indonesian) terms that will be used throughout the rest of the dissertation; I illustrate how kabupaten Banyuwangi (‘Banyuwangi Regency’) is situated geographically and geopolitically with respect to other administrative units; and I introduce the ministries and departments whose actions interplay with the policies and agendas of these administrative units. The following subsections identify the various administrative units of Indonesia’s government, including geopolitical units such as provinces and regencies (§1.1.1.1) as well as some relevant ministries and departments of

Indonesia’s central government (§1.1.1.3). I begin, now, with a top-down (i.e. largest-to- smallest) summary of the geopolitical units of Indonesia, stepwise narrowing my focus to

Banyuwangi and its respective sub-units.

1.1.1.1. Provinces, regencies, districts, cities, and villages

Present-day Indonesia is divided into 34 provinsi (‘provinces’)—six of which cover the island of Java. Two of these six, The Special Capital Region of Jakarta and The Special

Administrative Region of , are essentially greater metropolitan areas which 6

have been given the status of provinsi—(greater) Jakarta due to its massive population of

30 million inhabitants and its function as the hub of economic and political activity in

Indonesia, and Yogyakarta due to a combination of historical and cultural factors. The remaining four provinces of Java, each with considerably larger territorial footprints, are

Banten (westernmost Java), Jawa Barat (‘West Java’), Jawa Tenggah (‘’), and Jawa Timur (‘East Java’)—home to Banyuwangi and the focus of this dissertation.

Figure 2: “Location of East Java in Indonesia” (Wikipedia contributors, 2011)

Each province of Indonesia has its own capital city and provincial government. In East

Java, the city of functions as capital city and the home of the provincial government, with its governor overseeing 29 kabupaten (‘regencies’) and nine kotamadya (‘municipalities’). These 38 kabupaten and kotamadya each have their own regional government, administratively beneath the level of provincial government.

Banyuwangi is the easternmost kabupaten of East Java (and, therefore, of Java as a whole). It is also the largest in terms of landmass, nearly doubling the size of second- largest kapubaten Jember, which neighbors Banyuwangi to the west. Despite its size, 7

Banyuwangi has in fact the lowest population density of all kabupaten in East Java. This designation is somewhat misleading, though, given the extremely low populations in the expansive, mountainous areas of northwestern Banyuwangi and the preserved, forested area of Alas Purwo (a national park) in the southeast.

The administrative head of each kabupaten is its bupati (‘regent’, or more familiarly ‘mayor’), who oversees a given number of kecamatan (‘districts’). Present-day

Banyuwangi has 25 kecamatan, with the most recent kecamatan having been formed in early 2017. (As such, there were 24 kecamatan during my 2016 research visit, and 25 during my 2017 visit.) Recent bupati of Banyuwangi, including particularly the current bupati, have championed the promotion of Osing language and culture in the region. That said, with regard to language planning, the regional government of Banyuwangi has not always followed the decisions of its provincial government—and the provincial government has not always formally recognized the decisions made by Banyuwangi. This interplay between provincial and regional governments has played a significant role in the language situation in Banyuwangi, especially over the past five years, and is discussed in greater detail in later sections of this dissertation.

Beneath the level of kecamatan and kotamadya are desa (‘villages’), which also have their own administrative heads. I refer to several desa in this dissertation (e.g., desa

Kemiren, which is considered to be the locus of Osing language and culture in

Banyuwangi).

There are administrative divisions beneath desa, as well—formalized all the way down to a position analogous to “neighborhood watchperson” in America—but these do not require any specific attention in this dissertation beyond a broad and heartfelt “Thank 8

you” to the individuals who granted me access to interview and record the members of their communities.

1.1.1.2. Regional representative council(s)

Another distinct level of government is the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD; loosely, ‘Regional representative councils’ or ‘House of Representatives’). The DPRD operates at both the level of province and regency (DPRD Provinsi and DPRD

Kabupaten, respectively). These advisory bodies work with local and provincial governments to establish regulations, and with Indonesia’s central government to implement legislation—providing a system of “checks and balances,” so to speak.

I will now return to the central government of Indonesia and discuss several ministries and departments involved with matters pertaining to language planning.

1.1.1.3. Ministries and departments

Indonesia’s current Cabinet comprises roughly 30 kementerian (‘ministries’) as well as non-ministerial offices such as the National Armed Forces and the National Police. These kementerian (and, sometimes, Departments within kementerian) work closely with regional governments in developing regional agendas and implementing specific policies.

Three of these ministries are of particular relevance to status planning in

Banyuwangi: The Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Tourism. Each has played a significant role in the evolution of status planning in Banyuwangi in recent years. Three important milestones—each ten years apart—are marked by the official decisions of these offices. The first occurred in 1997, when the Ministry of Education and Culture allowed the Osing language to be taught in 9

schools (Arps, 2010: 237). In 2007, the Ministry of Home Affairs ruled that “regional languages” were to be preserved and developed by regional governments (Widodo AS.,

2007), and in 2017, the Ministry of Tourism first recognized Banyuwangi as “Best

Festival City in Indonesia” (Astro, 2017). See Chapter 3 for discussion.

As mentioned above, departments beneath the level of kementerian also influence regional policies. Of particular relevance to this dissertation is the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa (‘Language Development and Advancement Agency’), which has undergone at least seven name changes since its inception in 1945 as Balai Bahasa (‘Language Home’). Today, regional offices of the

Balai Bahasa (named as such) can be found in each province. The Balai Bahasa of East

Java is located in Sidoarjo, just south of the capital city of Surabaya. I visited this office twice during my research and became acquainted with its (newly retired) leader. These regional offices serve a dual function in reporting to their respective provincial governments and the Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, as well as assisting regional governments and universities with language resources. The aforementioned leader of East Java’s Balai Bahasa had a specific agenda of promoting and culture in East Java—an agenda which has influenced the language situation in Banyuwangi. I will now turn to discussing this language situation.

1.1.2. The linguistic ecology of Banyuwangi

Banyuwangi is a multiglossic community, meaning that there are several languages in everyday use. Its proximity to the islands of to the East and Madura to the North has contributed to its reputation as a culturally and linguistically diverse environment, home 10

to several ethnic groups and languages including Javanese, Madurese, Balinese, and

Osing, with smaller and (Adelaar, 1996: 73) and Arabic-speaking populations. In addition to one of several first languages, formally, every Banyuwangi resident also speaks Indonesian, which is taught in schools (along with Javanese) as

Indonesia’s official, national language.

On an island with nearly 150 million people, Banyuwangi Regency hosts 1.6 million inhabitants (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Banyuwangi, 2011), with 25 districts or “kecamatan” covering 2,232 square miles.

Figure 3: The kabupaten of East Java and the kecamatan of Banyuwangi

The left image of Figure 3 shows the easternmost position of Banyuwangi among East

Java’s kabupaten; the right image shows a map of Banyuwangi’s kecamatan, with kecamatan Blimbingsari highlighted (Source: Wikipedia contributors, 2017). During my 11

first research trip there were only 24 kecamatan in Banyuwangi; a 25th kecamatan was formed on January 9, 2017 (Pemerintah Kabupaten Banyuwangi, 2017).

Osing is considered by Banyuwangi’s government and locals alike to be the native tongue of the area. (See §1.1.2.3 for a historical account.) Osing currently has an estimated 500,000 to 750,000 speakers (Arps, 2004: 3), with 300,000 native speakers

(, 2018) and (therefore) an additional population of second-language speakers numbering between 200,000 and 450,000 people. However, although this estimate of

“500,000 to 750,000 speakers” is found in many published works, none cites any credible census data2. In fact, Indonesian census data (Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten

Banyuwangi, 2011) do not include specific information about ‘Osing,’ and the census survey question regarding “everyday language” includes only ‘Bahasa Indonesia,’

‘Bahasa Daerah,’ and ‘Bahasa Asing’ (‘Indonesian,’ ‘Regional Language,’ and ‘Foreign

Language’) as options (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2013). Given this, there exists no true measure—self-reported or otherwise—of the number of speakers of Osing. Based on existing literature, these estimates seem to have originated in works published in the

1980s by Hasan Ali, who argued (also without source data) that more than half of

Banyuwangi’s population speaks Osing.

Indeed, the early efforts to promote Osing as a regional language have had an additive effect. In an area where Indonesian is spoken by nearly 100% of the population as the formal (official) standard language, and with Javanese representing not only the

2 Ethnologue cites “(2000 Census)” but this information is not publicly available in the 2000 census report. 12

largest ethnic population of both Java and Indonesia but also one of the most widely spoken non-official languages in the world, the unlikely success of Osing status planning efforts is part of what prompted this research. The following sections provide an overview of the history of language planning in Indonesia (§1.1.2.1) and of present-day language planning in Banyuwangi (§1.1.2.2).

1.1.2.1. Language planning in Indonesia

Along with Indonesia’s declaration of independence in 1945 came the declaration of

“Indonesian” as its official, national language (which it remains to this day). This decision was rooted in a meeting of the Second Indonesian Youth Congress in 1928

(Englebretson, 2014: 559), whose aim was to adopt and promote a national language without giving priority to (nor marginalizing) any of the hundreds of languages spoken by at least as many ethnic groups. A variety of Malay was chosen as a somewhat neutral variety, not directly linked to any specific ethnicity or region of Indonesia. This variety of

Malay was given the name Bahasa Indonesia (‘’ or simply

‘Indonesian,’ as it is commonly referred to today) and was subsequently standardized.

Now, as one of the most widely-spoken languages in the world, its success is hailed as nothing short of “miraculous” (Fishman, 1978: 333) in the context of language planning.

Sneddon (2003: 114) describes “a complete absence of conflict, or even debate on the matter” with regard to the “unanimous acceptance of Indonesian as the sole national language in such a multilingual nation”. Sneddon (2003: 120) later clarifies “acceptance” as “recognition by the population of the variety selected as an official language and symbol of national unity”. During the process of gaining Dutch recognition of 13

Indonesia’s independence, the nation’s commitment to Indonesian played a key role in building a “solid foundation for national unity” (Sneddon, 2003: 114–5).

Heinz Kloss famously introduced the terms abstandsprache and ausbausprache in the 1950s, later providing the respective ‘English’ terms ‘abstand language’ and ‘ausbau language’ (Kloss, 1967: 29) to distinguish “language by distance” from “language by development”. Given these loose definitions, it can be said that Indonesia’s pre- independence proponents of a national language handpicked an abstand language (Malay) to be rebadged as Indonesian. The subsequent standardization, reformation, and widespread adoption of Indonesian quickly changed its status to an ausbau language— that is, “language by development”. Beyond these earliest stages of the adoption and standardization, however, neither of the terms ‘abstand’ and ‘ausbau’ can be used to discuss Indonesian as a whole. Today, there is an official, “standard” variety known as

Bahasa Indonesia yang Baik dan Benar (loosely, ‘Correct Indonesian’) used in instruction, news media, and government. With over 100 million speakers, however— including increasing numbers of first-language speakers—“Indonesian” has evolved to include many regional varieties, constituting a dialect continuum of more- and less- mutually-intelligible forms.

1.1.2.2. Present-day language planning in Banyuwangi

The recent expansion of Osing is largely due to elements of status planning, such as the efforts of the local government to transform Banyuwangi into a “Festival City” (see

§1.1.2.3), drawing from Osing traditions and language to create ‘authentic’ Banyuwangi experiences. As I show in this dissertation, these recent efforts have resulted in a 14

widespread adoption of Osing as the language of Banyuwangi. However, the adoption of this “language by development” is far from uniform. Today, like Indonesian, there exist many varieties of Osing, which together constitute a continuum of more- and less- mutually-intelligible varieties.

Since at least 2009, Indonesia’s central government has formally tasked local governments with promoting regional languages and to “develop, nurture, and protect regional languages and literatures” (Yudhoyono, 2009: 17). Further, local governments are instructed to “create atmospheres conducive to speaking local languages, including the empowerment and establishment of local traditional institutions, in order to increase positive attitudes so that people have an awareness, pride, and loyalty to the local language norms” (Yudhoyono, 2014: 11).

Although these broad measures have been set forth by the central government, there is little in the way of specific instructions regarding their implementation by regional and local governments. In theory and in practice, regional and local governments are (also) tasked with interpreting specifically how to implement these goals, along with deciding which cultures and languages to promote. Definitions of terms such as “regional languages,” “local traditional institutions,” and “local language norms” are therefore open to interpretation by local and regional governments. And in fact, in the case of

Banyuwangi, interpretations by the local government do not match the interpretations of the provincial government of East Java.

Based on a 2014 ruling by the governor of East Java (Soekarwo, 2014) the provincial government of East Java recognizes only Javanese and Madurese as its regional languages. This has resulted in the omission of Osing from the Ministry of 15

Education and Culture’s official list of the 652 (Badan

Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan,

2018a). Notably, this list expressly omits “the distribution of regional languages,” stating that if they were included, the total number of languages would instead be 733 (Badan

Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan,

2018b). Despite this, the Banyuwangi government has persevered with its agenda of promoting Osing as the regional language of Banyuwangi. (See Table 2 (in Chapter 2) for a diagram showing the genetic relationship of Osing to Javanese and Indonesian.)

1.1.2.3. Osing language and people

Most resources on Banyuwangi and begin with some historical account of the kingdoms and sultanates of the 15th and 16th centuries. Prior to the expansion of the

Mataram Sultanate, the Empire controlled much of what are now known as central and east Java, while the Kingdom of Blambangan ruled the easternmost part of

Java (now Banyuwangi). Conners (2008: 28) describes the 16th-century migration of one group of people from central Java:

“…when the Majapahit Empire fell near the end of the 15 century, many Hindu-Javanese fled to the eastern salient (Oesthoek) of the island of Java and to Bali. ... the Osing dialect also followed a unique path, and survives as a distinct dialect today.”

Having traveled beyond the easternmost reaches of the , these Hindu-

Javanese migrants settled in the Kingdom of Blambangan. Arps (1992: 115) summarizes the next two hundred years: 16

“In the first half of the seventeenth century the kingdom of Mataram stretched its expansionist conquests to the eastern salient. Campaigns were launched against Blambangan (which was then a protectorate of Gelgel in Bali) in the 1630s and 1640s. ... the territory of Blambangan was gradually reduced to the area of the present-day regency of Banyuwangi. ... From around 1700 the Blambangan capital was situated in Lateng near Pampang, in the vicinity of the present-day harbour of Muncar. It was conquered by forces of the in 1767, and destroyed in 1768 after an uprising under Pangeran Wilis.”

Figure 4 shows the expansion of Mataram between 1613 and 1645 and its eastward extension into the kingdom of Blambangan (Source: Wikipedia contributors, 2018).

Figure 4: Expansion of Mataram into Blambangan

Following the destruction of Blambangan, the Dutch built a new colonial town to the north of its former capital (Beatty, 2003: 14). The exact “birthdate” of Banyuwangi is not known, but December 18, 1771 has been established as a suitable approximation, and is celebrated annually as a means of commemorating the end of this period of war and the 17

reestablishment of growth and peace in the region. The descendants of the remaining

(Javanese) inhabitants are known today as Banyuwangi’s autochthonous Osing people.

Local folklore suggests the name ‘Osing’ originated in this newly-formed town of

Banyuwangi, with the arrival of settlers from other (i.e. farther west) parts of Java. When asked by these newcomers whether they were Balinese, the local inhabitants replied

“osing” (‘no’ in their language variety). As the immigrants did not understand this word to mean ‘no’, they interpreted it as the locals’ demonym. According to Beatty (2003: 11),

“local historians suggest, plausibly enough, that the epithet was given by immigrants who would have been struck by the fact that the word for ‘no’ in the local dialect is osing, in contrast to the ora of standard Javanese.” Thus, these Osing people were named as such given their distinct language variety.

In the present day, Osing is taught alongside Indonesian and Javanese in

Banyuwangi schools, and the local government and tourism offices recognize Osing as a language (and culture) distinct from Javanese and specific to Banyuwangi. Further, in recent years, people of non-ethnic-Osing descent have begun to identify as Osing based on speaking the language or participating in Osing culture (see Chapter 4). While

Banyuwangians are increasingly embracing their Osingness, policymakers are embracing the opportunity to promote Osing by organizing many cultural events and festivals as well as promoting the Osing village of Kemiren as an adat budaya (‘indigenous culture’) tourist destination.

Osing is the language considered by Banyuwangi’s government and locals alike to be the native tongue of Banyuwangi regency and is associated with the local (Osing) ethnicity, despite the fact that many of Banyuwangi’s kecamatan (‘districts’) have very 18

few speakers of Osing. It seems an obvious (albeit problematic) choice: Osing people, language, and culture are unique to Banyuwangi, while the other cultures and languages are all linked to another region. Although there are many speakers of Madurese in

Banyuwangi, Madurese is neither taught nor promoted on a regional level (that is, outside of majority-Madurese-speaking kecamatan such as Wongsorejo, the northernmost kecamatan of Banyuwangi). This widescale, regional fascination with Osing language and culture is what prompted my interest in conducting field research in Banyuwangi.

Following three independent, non-sponsored visits to Banyuwangi in 2015 and early

2016, I embarked on my first field research trip in May, 2016.

1.2. Field research

Through a Pre-Dissertation Research Grant awarded by the Rice University Social

Sciences Research Institute3 I was able to conduct field research in Indonesia from May

16 to October 12, 2016. I conducted interviews in Indonesian in order to determine individual and overall evaluations of ethnic stereotypes, speaker perceptions of prestige among language varieties, and the specific settings and ways in which Osing is used.

Interview questions pertained to language attitudes, including speakers’ perceptions of prestige among the language varieties of Banyuwangi and particularly the status of

Osing, as well as the various labels used (by the consultants themselves and by others) to

3 My research project received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Rice University on January 9, 2016 (Study #IRB-FY2016-579) and has been renewed annually. 19

identify each other. I have transcribed each interview using standard (Du Bois et al.,

1993) discourse transcription conventions. I also recorded naturalistic, everyday conversations in 14 locations with speakers likely to produce single-language data, including ethnic-Osing households. In addition I collected recordings of several public events, capturing stage performers’ use of Osing. I returned to Banyuwangi for a second, shorter field research trip in May, 2017, made possible by a Wagoner Foreign Study

Fellowship, in order to supplement these data. (See §1.2.2 for detailed descriptions of each dataset.)

1.2.1. Research questions

Given my prior visits, which provided brief exposures to the language situation in

Banyuwangi, three primary questions quickly emerged as the basis of my field research:

• In what ways has the state-sponsored push to promote regional language and

culture influenced locals’ perceptions of language and identity?

• In what ways does the invigoration of Osing language and culture manifest in

features of Osing language (phonology, lexicon, and grammar) in public,

state-sponsored stage performances?

• What differences exist between the varieties of Osing spoken inside homes

and those which are found on stage, at festivals and other public events?

Regarding the first question, interviews reveal that the state-sponsored promotion of

Osing language and culture has created a regional pride of place, with elements of Osing 20

language and culture having become the trademarks not just of the Osing people, but of

Banyuwangi at large. Crucially, speakers equate Osing with Banyuwangi, as shown in the following examples from three different interviews.

(1) “Orang Osing, itu-- maksudnya Orang Banyuwangi.” (‘Orang Osing’ means ‘Orang Banyuwangi’.)

(2) “Kalau Orang Osing itu? Siapapun yang ada di Banyuwangi.” ([the definition of] ‘Orang Osing’? Anyone [who lives] in Banyuwangi.)

(3) “Karena saya lahir di Banyuwangi, saya disebut dengan wong Osing.” (Because I was born in Banyuwangi, I am referred to as wong Osing.)

While “Osing” was primarily associated with an ethnicity as recently as 20 years ago, it now has a supra-ethnic, regional association with Banyuwangi at large. As shown in (1)–

(3), ‘Orang Osing’ and ‘wong Osing’ are regional identity labels which can refer to almost anyone in Banyuwangi, regardless of ethnicity. Consultants negotiate identities

(their own and those of others)—determining who is and who is not wong Osing and suku

Osing based on sociocultural factors and language ideologies—reflecting a very recent, state-sponsored recontextualization of Osingness.

My second and third research questions are closely related and involve whether, and to what extent, the features of private conversations in homes mirror the state- sponsored language performed at festivals and other public events. Sponsored language tends to focus on ‘uniqueness’ (Fishman, 2004: 87, 92)—that is, sounds and words which diverge most from other languages and fulfill sociolinguistic attitudes about Osing. In public performances, speakers perform identities by using linguistic features as ‘cultural 21

capital’ (Bourdieu, 1977: 89) to situate themselves in social space (Benwell & Stokoe,

2006: 167). In these public settings, the unique linguistic features of Osing that non- speakers associate with the language manifest as indices of Osingness. One such index is the palatalization of certain sounds in specific phonological environments—for example the reliably palatalized [b] in [bʲaɲuwaŋi] (‘Banyuwangi’; c.f. non-palatalized

[baɲuwaŋi]) in Osing-language stage performances, which can be considered a hyperextension of the variable palatalization found in conversation data. Having recorded and analyzed public performances and household conversations, I document and describe the structure and use of Osing in these two contexts (see Chapter 2).

1.2.2. Data

As discussed above, the data comprise three distinct sets, including conversation data, interview data, and data from public performances. I discuss these in turn in the following sections.

1.2.2.1. Conversation data

During both research trips I gathered naturalistic, non-elicited discourse data (Bowern,

2015: 122) from households throughout Banyuwangi using Roland R-05 handheld recorders. In each household the recorders were placed in high-traffic areas likely to capture natural language (usually the kitchen or the living room) and left to record until the batteries ran out. The conversations extracted from each recording vary in quantity and length; these naturalistic data form the basis of my analyses of varieties of Osing and

Banyuwangi Javanese in §2.2. These conversations also provide an empirical framework 22

to discuss some of the linguistic features commonly associated with Osing (e.g., palatalization and diphthongization) as variable, rather than as fixed, stable features.

1.2.2.2. Interviews

In 2016 and 2017 I conducted 20 interviews throughout Banyuwangi. Interviews were recorded using a pair of AT831B Audio-Technica lapel mics (one each for me and the consultant) and a Roland handheld recorder. I interviewed speakers throughout

Banyuwangi regency, visiting areas with predominantly ethnic-Osing populations as well as non-ethnic-Osing populations. These interviews were designed to learn about the lives and identities of speakers and to determine individual and overall evaluations of ethnic stereotypes. Interview questions pertained to language attitudes and speakers’ perceptions of prestige. I used a list of prepared interview questions and conducted all interviews in

Indonesian, although the interviews regularly veered from the list of questions. The interview questions pertained to which languages are spoken in the area; which of these languages are prestigious; where in the region Osing is spoken and not spoken; and who does and does not speak Osing. Other questions pertained to the consultants themselves:

Their backgrounds, languages spoken, attitudes about languages in the area, how often and in which contexts they speak each language, and in which ways Osing differs from

Javanese. I also asked every consultant about the different spellings of Osing—which 23

spellings they were aware of, and which spellings were preferred and dispreferred4. The average length of each interview is just over 30 minutes.

I also asked each consultant to complete a map task. Each consultant was provided a map of Banyuwangi Regency and a marker, with instructions to circle all the areas in which they believe Osing is spoken. The results of this map task (compiled in

GIMP (Kimball & Peter Mattis, 2012)) can be seen in the below figure and reflect a strong general consensus about where Osing is and is not spoken. Based on opinions from these interviews, the heaviest concentrations of Osing are found in kecamatan

Glagah, Kabat, Banyuwangi, Giri, Kalipuro, Rogojampi, Singojuruh, Songgon, and Licin.

It is important to note that the map shown in Figure 5 is based entirely on language attitudes and does not represent any observed continuum. The original map used in the map task showed topographical shading, which has been removed from Figure 5 to highlight the overlain circles drawn by the consultants. This is relevant because topography played a role in most consultants’ decisions; it also explains the splitting of kecamatan Srono, Licin, and Kalipuro into what could be described as ‘Osing-speaking’ and ‘non-Osing’ (mountainous and therefore relatively uninhabited) areas. These opinions helped shape my decisions of where to seek natural language data.

4 I have chosen to use the spelling ‘Osing’ throughout this dissertation. My rationale is based primarily on precedent in the field: Ethnologue (Simons & Fennig, 2018; online at Ethnologue.com) references ‘Osing’ using the code ‘osi’ established by the International Organization for Standardization for this language variety, and nearly all other English- language resources on Osing use this spelling.

24

Figure 5: Map Task

1.2.2.3. Public performances

In 2007, specific status planning measures were introduced by Indonesia’s Ministry of

Home Affairs (and enacted by the President of Indonesia in 2009) to “develop, nurture, and protect regional languages and literatures.” (Yudhoyono, 2009: 17). As such, the local government is tasked with promoting local culture—and has done so by 25

transforming Banyuwangi into a “Festival City,” with an increasing number of cultural festivals each year.

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

15 23 36 53 66 77 99

Table 1: Listings on official Banyuwangi festival calendars, by year.

Many of these events span several days, and there are often additional festivals which do not appear on a given year’s published calendar. These festivals have focused primarily on promoting (or, commodifying; see §3.2) Osing rituals and dance performances, with a recent shift to include “international” events such as International Tour de Banyuwangi

Ijen (a bike race) and a marathon.

Given the increasing number of festivals in Banyuwangi in recent years (shown in

Table 1) I was afforded many opportunities to record performance data in situ. In this dissertation I examine data from two specific festivals: Festival Patrol, which I attended in 2016 and 2017, and Lalare Orkestra, which I attended in 2016. Despite having attended only one Lalare Orkestra event, I have sourced publicly-available recorded data from four consecutive iterations of this event, starting with the 2015 event and ending with the most recent event on July 21, 2018. In addition, I was granted access to audio from the 2018 event, which was recorded and provided to me by an acquaintance.

The recordings from the Lalare Orkestra events capture a local comedy troupe performing roles as Osing characters, providing a basis for comparison between one 26

specific type of state-sponsored, public varieties of Osing and the varieties of Osing found in recordings of private, naturalistic conversation data. Festival Patrol is an annual, state-sponsored competition involving music groups from every kecamatan in

Banyuwangi. Each group is required to perform at least one traditional Osing song, and the groups are judged on their use of Osing language (and other criteria including showmanship). These data are relevant to my discussion of the phonological variables of

Osing and their use as indices of Osingness. See §2.3 for general discussion of Osing in public performances and §3.3.3 for specific detail about Festival Patrol.

In an area where Indonesian is spoken by nearly 100% of the population as the formal (official) standard language, and with Javanese representing not only the largest ethnic population of both Java and Indonesia but also one of the most widely spoken non- official languages in the world, the success of Osing status planning efforts is remarkable.

Later chapters of this dissertation show the ways in which speakers respond, push back, and conform to popularization efforts, and the ways in which language correlates with sociolinguistic identities. First, in Chapter 2, I will discuss some linguistic features of

Osing and Banyuwangi Javanese, comparing existing literature with empirical research data. 27

Chapter 2

Features of varieties of Osing and (Banyuwangi) Javanese

There are two main goals of this chapter. One is to show features of different speech varieties in Banyuwangi based on empirical research, which has not been done in prior literature. The other is to show that there is a stylized variety of Osing found in public performances which differs from the varieties found in household conversations. This ties in with the larger theoretical framework of the dissertation: that the top-down vitalization of Osing has resulted in different notions of what Osing is, what ‘speaking Osing’ is, and who is and is not Osing.

As this chapter’s title suggests, there are distinctions to be made between

Banyuwangi Javanese and other Javanese varieties, as well as distinctions between Osing and (Banyuwangi) Javanese. I begin with a summary of existing literature on Osing and varieties of Javanese (§2.1) and continue with analyses of varieties of Osing and Javanese within Banyuwangi (§2.2) based on conversation data recorded during my research trips.

This chapter concludes with an analysis of Osing used in public performance (§2.3), contrasting this public, state-sponsored variety of Osing with private, naturalistic conversation data. 28

2.1. Existing literature and prior research

Although there has been much anthropological research on the recent expansion of Osing in Banyuwangi, linguistic research on Osing to this point is severely limited, both in quantity and in scope. Existing resources comprise anecdotal evidence and Swadesh word lists; empirical research on Osing language patterns and use is practically non-existent.

Western researchers have typically classified Osing as a variety of Javanese. In a chapter on Javanese, Ogloblin (2004: 591) identifies two main dialect groups of

Javanese—‘western’ and ‘central-eastern’—and then summarizes the status of Osing as a peripheral variety:

“Two main dialect groups can be distinguished. A western group has been in contact with Sundanese and is more archaic in phonology. It has retained voiced consonants and the pronunciation of the final [a]. On the other hand, a central-eastern dialect group changed [a] for [ɔ] (cf. Poerwadarminta, 1953: 2). Its voiced consonants have become voiceless aspirated ones. The eastern part of the central-eastern area has been in contact with Madurese for many centuries. A separate status should perhaps be given to the Osing (Using) dialect in the extreme east of Java (Banyuwangi district).”

In his dissertation on Tengger Javanese, another under-documented language variety of

Java, Conners (2008: 14) makes a similar mention:

“Typically [the dialects of] Yogya and Solo exemplify what is held to be the ‘standard’ language. However, there are numerous other dialects on the island that have often been overlooked by scholars. From Banten in West Java, to Banyumas in Central Java to Banyuwangi and Osing in East Java, many of these ‘dialects’ are not mutually intelligible and most have received little if any scholarly treatment.” 29

Conners (2008: 50) also briefly discusses Osing phonology, saying “Other regional dialects of Javanese have developed quite different phoneme inventories, such as the presence of a series of palatalized stops in the Osing dialect of Banyuwangi.”

Table 2, adapted from Ethnologue, shows the relationships between Indonesian,

Javanese, and Osing. Ethnologue lists Osing as a language alongside Javanese in the

“Javanese” subgroup of Malayo-Polynesian (Simons & Fennig, 2018).

Austronesian

Malayo- Polynesian

Malayo- Javanese Chamic

Malayic

Malay

Indonesian Javanese Osing [ind] [jav] [osi]

Table 2: Language-family relations of Indonesian, Javanese, and Osing

Although English-language resources have little to offer in the way of describing Osing language patterns, there have been many prescriptive works on Osing published by

Indonesian authors. I discuss these in §2.1.2 and then compare these prescriptive views 30

with naturally-occurring conversation data in §2.2. Considerably more (descriptive) research has been done on varieties of Javanese. In the following subsections I focus primarily on research relevant to varieties spoken in East Java—later (in §2.2) comparing existing literature with conversation data.

Before discussing these varieties it is important to emphasize that my research does not make any claims as to whether Osing is best classified as a distinct language or

(instead) as a variety or dialect of Eastern Javanese. Such a distinction would require a combination of quantitative methods (e.g., lexical similarity tests and comprehension tests) and participatory, community-wide surveys across the entire language area. To date, no research has used this combination of rigorous methods in distinguishing Osing as a “language” or “dialect”. Nonetheless, this distinction is often made by linguists, policymakers, activists, and laypersons—often to further one agenda or another. For example, Osing language activist Hasan Ali quoted seven (Osing) sentences in front of the 1996 Javanese Language Congress, stating that if the attending Javanese language experts could understand the sentences, he would be willing to admit that Osing was not a distinct language but rather a dialect of Javanese (Arps, 2010: 236). One sentence was:

Cumpu, dhonge didalakaken, iyane sing inguk paran-paran! actually upon be.guided 3SG NEG able what-what

Arps (2010: 236) provides the following Javanese translation:

Coba, bareng digolekke dalan, dheweke ora isa apa-apa. try when be.looked.for way 3SG NEG able what-what 31

This sentence pair5 roughly translates to “Imagine, when you found a way [for him], he couldn’t do anything”. As the Javanese language experts were not able to understand

Ali’s examples, they determined Osing to be a distinct language, paving the way for

Osing to be taught as a language in public schools in Banyuwangi the following year.

As Arps (2010: 236) notes, Ali’s sentences were likely designed to be maximally unintelligible for persons unfamiliar with Osing, in order to bolster his claim that Osing should be recognized as a distinct language and not a dialect of Javanese. Although this exercise directly impacted public policy, it failed to address measures of similarity of core vocabulary and the question of Javanese speech levels and register (see §4.1). The language/dialect distinction requires rigorous scientific research and must take into account both quantitative and qualitative methods as described above. I leave this inquiry open for future research.

2.1.1. Javanese

The “general agreement” (Nurhayani & Cohn, 2016: 23) in recent literature is that

Javanese has six underlying (phonemic) vowels: /i/, /e/, /u/, /o/, /a/, and /e/. There exist other recent analyses, such as the eight-vowel phoneme system proposed by Clynes,

(1994: 473), which includes /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ as phonemic vowels. Clynes goes on to say, however, that “other vowel phoneme systems have been proposed, mainly because the vowels [e] and [ɛ] are largely if not entirely in complementary distribution, as are [o] and

5 Arps (2010: 236) does not specify which variety of Javanese is used in his example. 32

[ɔ].” Nothofer (first in 1980 and again in 2006: 114) follows the six-vowel analysis, providing the following rules for allophony:

“/i/, /u/ are realized as [ɪ], [ʊ] in closed syllables and as [i], [u] elsewhere. /ə/ is always realized as [ə]. The phonemes /e/, /o/ are realized as [ɛ] and [ɔ] in closed syllables, in open syllables where the vowel in a following open syllable is high, and in open syllables where the vowel in a following syllable is identical or /ə/. In all other positions, these phonemes are realized as [e] and [o]. The phoneme /a/ appears as [ɔ] word-finally and in penultimate open syllables where a following open syllable has /a/. Otherwise, it appears as [a]. Allophonic variation also depends on the initial phoneme of suffixes: the addition of a consonant-initial suffix results in the treatment of the stem-final vowel as if it appeared in a closed syllable and the addition of a vowel-initial suffix will cause a high vowel in the stem-final closed syllable to behave as if it appeared in an open syllable.”

A similar analysis is illustrated in a figure presented in Arps (1992a: 12; presented below in Figure 6), which shows six vowel phonemes and their surface-level representations.

Figure 6: “The vowel system of central and east Javanese” (from Arps, 1992a) 33

The notable difference between these two analyses is that Arps considers the surface representations of /i/ to be [i] and [e] (c.f. Nothofer’s [i] and [ɪ]) and the surface representations of /u/ to be [u] and [o] (c.f. Nothofer’s [u] and [ʊ]). Nothofer’s analysis of surface vowels matches that presented in Dudas (1976: 33) and Adisasmito-Smith (2004:

24), which list ten surface vowels. Using Arps’s (1992a) illustration convention and following the analyses of Dudas, Adisasmito-Smith, and Nothofer, Table 3 shows the

(minimally) six underlying phonemes and their (maximally) ten surface-level representations. Hayward (1999: 203) argues that [ʊ] is perceptually the same as [o] for

Javanese speakers; the author therefore treats them as one sound, arguing (as Arps does) that [o] derives from /u/ in closed syllables and from /ɔ/ in open syllables. This argument is relevant to the ongoing controversy about the “correct” spelling of ‘Osing’ (see §3.3.4).

Table 3: The six phonemes of Javanese and their ten allophones

The consonant inventory of East Javanese is largely uncontested, with the main difference between analyses being the labels used for places and manner of articulation.

Table 4 summarizes analyses in the literature. When consonants appear in pairs, the item 34

on the right is “voiced”. Sounds specific to (mostly Arabic) loanwords are commonly omitted from Javanese consonant inventories (or are included in parentheses). These include [f], [v], [z], [s], and [x].

Labial Alveolar Post- Retroflex Palatal Velar Glottal alveolar Stops p b t d ʈ ɖ k g Affricates c j Nasals m n ɲ ŋ Fricatives s h Laterals l Trills r Glides w j

Table 4: East Javanese consonant phonemes

2.1.2. Osing

Indonesia’s Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (‘Department of Education and

Culture’) published a handful of works in the 1980s, all of which refer to the ‘dialect’ or

‘language’ of Banyuwangi. These include Tingkat Tutur Bahasa Jawa Dialek

Banyuwangi (“Speech Levels of Javanese: Banyuwangi Dialect,” Books 1 and 2

(Moeljono, Koentjahjo, Leo Idra Ardiana, E.S.P. Tampoebolon, & Sri Wahyu Widayati,

1986)); Geografi Dialek Banyuwangi (“Geography of the Banyuwangi Dialect” (Soetoko,

Soekarto, Abd. Rozak Z., Busyairi, & Hadiri, 1981)); Fonologi Bahasa Jawa Dialek

Banyuwangi (“Phonology of Javanese: Banyuwangi Dialect,” Books 1 (Surani,

Suparmin, I.C. Sudjarwadi, & Hadiri, 1986a) and 2 (Surani, Suparmin, I.C. Sudjarwadi, 35

& Hadiri, 1986b)); and Fungsi Bahasa Daerah (Bahasa Jawa dan Madura) Dalam

Domein Pemerintahan Desa oleh Para Kerawat Desa di Eks. Keresidenan Besuki (“The function of local language in the domain of village governments in the area formerly known as the administrative division of Besuki6” (Soegianto, 1980)). The data in each of these resources are limited to word lists elicited from a handful of speakers.

This list of early works is relevant because “Bahasa Osing” (‘Osing language’) is a very recent concept. It has, up until recently, been considered a dialect of Javanese. One relatively early mention of ‘Osing’ (as a language variety) is found in Arps (1992: 116).

The author mentions the ‘Using dialect’, saying, “At present three main ethnic groups live in the regency of Banyuwangi: ‘Using’ Javanese, ‘Kulonan’ Javanese, and Madurese.

The Using Javanese are the autochthonous inhabitants of the area. They speak a distinctive dialect of Javanese and have other cultural traits different from the rest of the

Javanese culture area” (Arps, 1992: 116).

Twelve years later, in a footnote, Arps says “It is a moot point among

Banyuwangi literati whether Osing, as I refer to it here, is a “dialect” of Javanese or indeed a distinct “language”. This controversy is important but it does not affect my argument in this paper and I will only mention it in passing” (Arps, 2004: 2). In a later paper Arps seems to further shift his position, making a casual reference of the “Osing language (closely related to Javanese)” (Arps, 2011: 2). Arps’s collective works on Osing

6 Keresidenan or Karesidenan were administrative districts when Indonesia was under Dutch rule. Besuki was one of these districts; although it is no longer recognized as such administratively, it is still known as the area comprising the four easternmost regencies of East Java: Bondowoso, Situbondo, Jember, and Banyuwangi. This is perhaps analogous to the area known as “New England” in America. 36

reflect the evolution of Osing from a low-prestige variety to its present, high-profile status as “the language of Banyuwangi” (see Chapter 3 for discussion of this evolution).

Hasan Ali produced an Osing-Indonesian dictionary in 2001, which was republished in 2006 by Dewan Kesenian Blambangan7 (roughly “the Arts Council of

Banyuwangi”). For the most part it follows general, prescriptive phonological rules, which do not always hold up in the data. At the same time, the dictionary also contains irregular items—for example, words that would be expected to follow a certain phonological pattern but don’t—which are also found in the data I collected. Ali’s influence on Osing language is profound. In my experience in modern-day Banyuwangi, his name is almost guaranteed mentioned in any formal context where the Osing language is discussed (e.g., prefaces of newer published works; openings of language seminars; festivals relevant to Osing language and culture).

Two other [prescriptive] resources produced by Ali are “Pedoman Umum Ejaan

Bahasa Using” (Ali, 2006b) and “Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Using” (Ali, 2006c), which discuss standard spelling and grammar conventions, respectively. In addition, Ali supervised the production of Osing-language-learning texts for elementary school (Yanto,

2003b), all of which are still in use and have not been updated since 2007 (Jusuf, 2018).

At least two scholars at the University of Indonesia have written dissertations on

Osing: One in 1987 (Herusantosa, 1987) and one in 2015 (Budiono, 2015). Again, these

7 As mentioned earlier, Blambangan is the name of the former Javanese kingdom which occupied an area including present-day Banyuwangi prior to Dutch rule. The name Blambangan can be seen in various contexts in Banyuwangi such as in the name of a park and a radio station, to name two. Although they have different referential meanings, ‘Blambangan’ is functionally equivalent to ‘Banyuwangi’ in such present-day contexts. 37

are based solely on elicited word lists. The Herusantosa dissertation provides analyses of vowel and consonant inventories of Osing. The description of vowel phonemes and their surface representations outlined in Herusantosa (1987: 92-99) matches that which is seen in Table 4 (Javanese), with six underlying vowels (/i/, /e/, /u/, /o/, /a/, and /e/) and ten primary surface representations ([i], [ɪ], [e], [ɛ], [u], [ʊ], [o], [ɔ], [a], and [ə])—in the same distribution as outlined in Nothofer (2006: 114).

The only difference between these analyses (of Javanese and Osing vowels) is

Herusantosa’s discussion of word-final diphthongization. All resources on Osing explain that this diphthongization occurs in two ways: the realization of word-final /i/ as [ai] and the realization of word-final /u/ as [au]. Examples of these can be seen below.

(4) iki > ikai (‘this’)

(5) iku > ikau (‘that’)

Crucially, at least according to prescriptive views, diphthongization must occur not just word-finally, but also phrase- or sentence-finally (i.e., these diphthongs would not be found anywhere other than at the end of a phrase or sentence). Ali (2006a) says these diphthongs may (but do not always) occur, at the end of a “word, clausal phrase, or sentence”. The author provides these examples:

(6) /iki/ ‘ini’ > [iki] or [ikai]

(7) /iku/ ‘itu’ > [iku] or [ikau]

(8) /iki kelendi/ ‘ini bagaimana’ > [iki kelendi] or [iki kelendai]

(9) /kelendi iku/ ‘bagaimana itu’ > [kelendi iku] or [kelendi ikau]

38

This feature variability is not discussed further. However, as seen in (8) and (9), the final vowel of kelendi (‘how’ in Osing) is sometimes diphthongized when the word is phrase- final (as shown in (8)) and not diphthongized otherwise (c.f. (9)). I discuss this variability in §2.2.

Herusantosa (1987) also lists the consonant phoneme inventory of Osing, saying it

(also) matches that of Javanese (Herusantosa, 1987: 106). The primary difference between Osing and Javanese consonants is variable (allophonic) palatalization of voiced consonants in certain phonological environments in Osing. The prescriptive rule for palatalization is boiled down as follows:

C [+voiced] > [+palatal] / __ [a] or [ɛ]

Jusuf (2015: 8) provides some more (prescriptive) detail. He says (translation mine):

“Palatalization occurs of /b/, /d/, /ɖ/, /g/, /j/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /ɲ/, /w/, /y/ when they are in front or in the middle of the word followed by vowels [a] or [ɛ]. Palatalization also occurs in the middle of the word for /r/ and /ŋ/ when followed by vowels [a] or [ɛ].”

I will now turn to analyses of naturally-occurring conversation data collected during my research trips to Banyuwangi, comparing existing literature and prescriptive views with empirical data. 39

2.2. Analysis from conversation data

The primary concern of this section is to demonstrate that some of the linguistic features commonly associated with Osing (i.e., palatalization and diphthongization) are variable.

This is important for several reasons. First, there has been no discussion in any published works on Osing regarding the variability of these features—in fact, they are commonly discussed as fixed, stable properties of the language—as is the case in most descriptions of languages. This section therefore makes an necessary contribution to the literature on

Osing. Second, through analyses of conversation data I am able to qualitatively compare this feature variability across different varieties of Osing. Third, this examination of feature variability in conversation data allows me to qualitatively compare some of the ways in which public, state-sponsored performance data differs from the language found in private settings (i.e. homes).

The following sections examine naturally-occurring recorded conversation data from three settings. I begin in §2.2.1 with an analysis of a variety of Osing8 spoken in desa Kemiren, a village widely considered to be the locus of asli (‘authentic, original’)

Osing language and culture. In §2.2.2 I examine recorded Osing conversation data from desa Tamansuruh, the neighboring village of Kemiren. (Both Kemiren and Tamansuruh are desa of kecamatan Glagah.) Finally, in §2.2.3 I move to a desa of Banyuwangi’s southeasternmost kecamatan Tegaldlimo, which is well outside the Osing-speaking area of Banyuwangi. The language variety examined in §2.2.3 is in fact a variety of Javanese,

8 The labels ‘Osing’ and ‘Javanese’ in this section are the ethnography-based terms that the speakers themselves use to categorize their own language varieties. 40

and analysis of conversation data in this section reveals no tokens of any of the linguistic features commonly associated with Osing.

2.2.1. Osing in desa Kemiren

This section focuses on one 36-minute recording of a conversation between four women

(ages 35, 44, 47, and 65) preparing a meal. Three other participants make brief comments during this recording, as well, but I have not included their speech in my analysis. The conversation is almost entirely Osing, with only a few occasional Indonesian words or phrases. I chose Kemiren as a site for data collection because people throughout

Banyuwangi consider it a predominantly Osing-speaking area and the locus of Osing language and culture.

My analysis reveals that some palatalization patterns may not be phonologically conditioned but are rather lexical or phono-lexical. This is supported by several factors: an extremely limited distribution of certain tokens, such as word-initial [mʲ], for example; some high-frequency words known to be mostly specific to Osing (for example paran

‘what’) but are never palatalized (*parʲan); and palatalization occurring in less than half of all possible phonological environments (i.e. involving a voiced consonant preceding

[a] or [ɛ]). By ‘possible phonological environments’ I mean “phonological environments assumed by prescriptive rules to produce palatalized consonants”. This is not to say palatalization cannot occur elsewhere—and in fact, it does. However, this “elsewhere” palatalization is limited to 24 tokens among eight lexical items in the data, and palatalization among tokens of these words is (also) variable. I discuss palatalization and diphthongization in the conversation data in the following section. 41

2.2.1.1. Phonology

I will start this section by introducing the term “palatalization-friendly environments”

(PFEs) to refer to the “phonological environments assumed by prescriptive rules to produce palatalized consonants”. Overwhelmingly, palatalization is in fact limited to these PFEs, with only a handful of lexical items producing (variable) palatalization in non-PFEs.

In 36 minutes of conversation the speakers from Kemiren produced a total of 271 tokens of palatalized consonants. Most tokens follow the “general rules” for palatalization described above, but 24 tokens do not. In other words, almost 9% of tokens appear in environments that would not be expected to produce palatalization.

Furthermore, each of the four main interlocutors produced several tokens of palatalization in non-PFEs. That said, palatalization in the Kemiren data is still restricted, occurring only on voiced consonants before [a] and [ɛ], or (infrequently) before [ɔ]. Among these four speakers there are a total of 593 PFEs. The conversation produced a total of 271 tokens of palatalization—24 of which occurred in non-PFEs. Therefore, just under 42%

(N=247) of these PFEs yielded tokens of palatalization. This “42%” represents an average of the percentages of palatalization for the four speakers in this conversation. The four interlocutors produced tokens of palatalization in 46%, 46%, 36%, and 42% of

PFEs, respectively, each also producing tokens of palatalization in non-PFEs. Table 5 shows the percentages of palatalized consonants9 in PFEs for each speaker.

9 Osing, like Javanese and Indonesian, has both /n/ and /ɲ/ in its phonemic inventory. Because of this, it is not clear whether a given sound is [ɲ] or [nʲ]. Similarly, it is not clear 42

Tokens of palatalization in non-PFEs (i.e. before [ɔ]) are excluded from Table 5 in order to focus on PFEs, specifically. This allows for apples-to-apples comparisons with data from other recordings in later sections of this chapter. Still, these 24 tokens of palatalization before [ɔ] require some discussion. As discussed in §2.1, /a/ (in both

Javanese and Osing) has two surface representations: [a] and [ɔ]. Further, “the phoneme

/a/ appears as [ɔ] word-finally and in penultimate open syllables where a following open syllable has /a/. Otherwise, it appears as [a]” (Nothofer, 2006: 114). Table 3 (presented earlier in this chapter) shows the realization of [ɔ] as both an allophone of /o/ (realized as

[ɔ] in closed syllables) and as an allophone of /a/ (realized as [ɔ] in open syllables). This provides some insight into the palatalization of certain consonants before [ɔ].

The 24 tokens of palatalization before [ɔ] occur in exactly eight lexical items (and derivations thereof). Two of the eight lexical items have word-final ‘a’—which, as an open syllable, is pronounced [ɔ]. Therefore, for words such as pira (‘how many/much’ in

Osing and Javanese), it could be argued that the palatalized [rʲ] in the pronunciation

[pirʲɔ] stems from the phonemic word-final /a/.

Similarly, dawa (‘long’ in Osing and Javanese) is pronounced as [dʲɔwɔ], with the phonemic penultimate vowel /a/ providing for palatalized [dʲ]. The other six lexical items with palatalization before [ɔ] require a somewhat different analysis. Kulon (‘west’ in

Javanese and Osing) is pronounced [kulʲɔn] at least once by three of the four speakers.

The word kulon is derived from Kawi (“Old Javanese”) kulwan (Wojowasito, 1980: 145).

when or whether [j] or [j] are palatalized. As such, I have not included these phonemes in my analyses. Further, as there are no tokens of palatalized voiceless consonants in any conversation data, I have excluded these, as well. 43

It could be the case that the palatalization of [lʲ] in the pronunciation [kulʲɔn] has origins in this earlier kulwan form. Similarly, the stem dol (‘sell’)—which more commonly appears as partially-reduplicated dodol in Javanese and Osing—derives from Kawi dwal

(Wojowasito, 1980: 284) Thus, it could be the case that the pronunciation [dʲɔdʲɔl] is based on this earlier form. Although similar speculative analyses can be made for several of the other words with pre-[ɔ] palatalization, this discussion is best continued in future research.

44

PALATALIZATION, “KEMIREN” Proportion TOTAL of each palatal palatalized “Willi” “Valerie” “Sara” “Tony” -ization by consonant (age 35) (age 44) (age 47) (age 65) consonant among all IN PFEs palatalized STOPS consonants 96% 96% 89% 86% 91% [bʲ] .38 (22 of 23) (24 of 25) (17 of 19) (30 of 35) (93 of 102) 100% 75% 82% 100% 93% [dʲ] .17 (7 of 7) (3 of 4) (9 of 11) (24 of 24) (43 of 46) 60% 80% 75% 81% 77% [ɖʲ] .11 (3 of 5) (4 of 5) (3 of 4) (17 of 21) (27 of 35) 86% 100% 100% 45% 71% [gʲ] .07 (6 of 7) (2 of 2) (4 of 4) (5 of 11) (17 of 24)

GLIDES 70% 22% 52% 47% 49% [wʲ] .13 (7 of 10) (2 of 9) (15 of 29) (9 of 19) (33 of 67) 25% 0% 22% 19% 20% [rʲ] .06 (5 of 20) (0 of 6) (4 of 18) (6 of 31) (15 of 75) 0% 17% 4% 4% 5% [lʲ] .02 (0 of 15) (2 of 12) (1 of 27) (1 of 28) (4 of 82)

NASALS 16% 7% 12% 5% 9% [mʲ] .04 (4 of 25) (1 of 14) (4 of 34) (2 of 44) (11 of 117) 13% 0% 13% 7% 9% [ŋʲ] .02 (1 of 8) (0 of 6) (2 of 16) (1 of 15) (4 of 45)

TOTAL TOTAL palatal (above palatal -ization 46% 46% 36% 42% proportions -ization IN PFEs: (55 of 120) (38 of 83) (59 of 162) (95 of 228) total by 42% 1.0) speaker (247 of 593)

Table 5: Palatalization percentages and proportions, desa Kemiren

As shown in Table 5, stops are generally palatalized more frequently than glides and nasals. Further, analysis of the proportion of each palatalized consonant (i.e. each consonant’s relative density among all palatalized consonants) reveals that [bʲ] accounts 45

for nearly two-fifths of all palatalization in this dataset. This is relevant for comparison to palatalization in performance data, as shown in §2.3.

Diphthongization is also variable, and occurs not just phrase-finally—as prescriptive views suggest—but also (infrequently) phrase-medially and phrase-initially

(i.e. at various points in a given intonation unit). Diphthongization is, however, restricted to word-final position, and there are no tokens of diphthongization other than the realization of word-final /i/ as [ai] and the realization of word-final /u/ as [au].

The “Kemiren” data reveal 102 tokens of diphthongization in 154

“diphthongization-friendly environments” (DFEs)—that is, phrase-final words ending in /i/ or /u/. There are an additional seven tokens of diphthongized words outside of phrase-final position10. Table 6 shows percentages of /i/ > [ai] and /u/ > [au] diphthongization by speaker, diphthongization by speaker, diphthongization by vowel, and proportion of each diphthong.

Although /u/ > [au] diphthongization accounts for more than half of all diphthongization in this dataset, the 59 total [au] tokens comprise only ten different lexical items. The 43 [ai] tokens comprise 19 different lexical items. Thus, 29 total lexical items account for all 102 tokens of diphthongization in this dataset. With few exceptions, these lexical items are variably diphthongized (i.e. also occur without diphthongization).

10 I am again omitting these from my analysis to provide an apples-to-apples comparison with other recorded data in later sections. 46

In this recording, a set of four related lexical items accounts for 43% (44 of 102) of all diphthongization. These lexical items are iki (‘this’; Osing and Javanese), iku

(‘that’; Osing and Javanese), gedigi (‘like this’; Osing), and gedigu (‘like that’; Osing).

That this wordset accounts for a large percentage of all diphthongization is not terribly surprising, as these words are commonly used at the end of a phrase—or alone, as a one- word intonation unit, and thus also phrase-final. Similarly, Indonesian ini (‘this’), itu

(‘that’), begini (‘like this’), and begitu (‘like that’) are commonly used as standalone intonation units or at the end of a larger phrase. Given the variable patterns of palatalization and diphthongization in Osing, this Osing wordset affords a window into patterns of each, as well as how these patterns do and don’t combine in single word.

When diphthongized, gedigu is usually realized as [gədigau], with word-final /u/ realized as diphthong [au]. Another realization is [gədigʲau], with palatalized [gʲ] appearing before the [a] sound of the diphthong [au]. As palatalization before [u] is unattested throughout all recorded data, there are no tokens of *[gədigʲu]—that is, palatalized [gʲ] before [u]. Similarly, when diphthongized, gedigi is realized as either

[gədigai] or [gədigʲai].

The Osing (and Javanese) words iku and iki are frequently realized as

(diphthongized) [ikau] and [ikai], respectively. As the /k/ of iku and iki is voiceless—and as voiceless consonants are never palatalized in any recorded conversation data—there are no tokens of palatalized *[ikʲau] or *[ikʲai] in this recording. This is also unsurprising, but is an important point for comparison with public performance data (§2.3).

47

DIPHTHONGIZATION, “KEMIREN”

TOTAL Proportion “Willi” “Valerie” “Sara” “Tony” diphthongs of each (age 35) (age 44) (age 47) (age 65) by vowel diphthong IN DFEs

/i/ > 33% 53% 67% 68% 60% .42 [ai] (3 of 9) (9 of 17) (14 of 21) (17 of 25) (43 of 72) /u/ > 63% 43% 75% 79% 72% .58 [au] (10 of 16) (3 of 7) (12 of 16) (34 of 43) (59 of 82)

TOTAL TOTAL diphthong- (above diphthong ization 52% 50% 70% 75% proportions -ization IN DFEs: (13 of 25) (12 of 24) (26 of 37) (51 of 68) total by 66% 1.0) speaker (102 of 154)

Table 6: Patterns of diphthongization in Kemiren

2.2.1.2. Lexical features

In earlier sections I referred to four Osing-specific lexemes (that is, words not found in

Javanese or Indonesian) from this dataset—gedigi (‘like this’), gedigu (‘like that’), paran

(‘what’), and kelendi (‘how’)—along with several other words found in both Osing and

Javanese. These four words and their diphthongized and/or palatalized variations are among the most common lexical items across all Osing language data, including the public performance discussed in §2.3. There are several other high-frequency words in the Kemiren data that are also found across recordings, as well as some high-frequency words that are not found across recordings. I will discuss these in turn.

Negative particle sing/hing is found across recordings, with all speakers using both forms multiple times. In the Kemiren data there are 49 tokens of sing and 26 tokens of hing. 48

Personal pronouns isun (1SG and 1SG:POSS) and rika (2SG and 2SG:POSS) are two well-known features of Osing and are discussed in other sections of this dissertation as indices of Osingness. In addition to isun, the forms sun and hun also appear regularly in the Kemiren data as first-person-singular pronouns, and the forms sira, hira, and ira appear regularly (along with rika) as second-person-singular pronouns.

2.2.1.3. Morphosyntax

Like Javanese and Indonesian (and many other languages in Indonesia), Osing has a symmetrical voice system— a “voice system with multiple transitive voice constructions, none of which is the clear-cut ‘basic’ voice form” (McDonnell, 2016: 1). The underlying voice forms are invariant prefix /di-/ and variant /N-/, with surface representations that vary based on the initial sound of the root word. The Kemiren data matches all other

Osing data in this respect, and also matches the morphophonological rules for /N-/ affixation in Javanese and Indonesian.

Osing also has a causative-applicative paradigm similar to that which is found in many varieties of Javanese (although, see §2.2.3 for one relevant exception), with underlying forms /-i/ and /-aken/. Suffix /-i/ takes the form [i] following a consonant and

[ni] following a vowel. In this dataset, suffix /-aken/ takes the forms [kaʔən] (following a vowel) and [aʔən] (following a consonant). This is relevant for comparison with the forms found in the performance data in §2.3.3.

Like Indonesian and Javanese, Osing has pronominal enclitic forms for first and second person singular. The Kemiren recording is unique among the data in that it contains tokens of morphological (in addition to analytic) enclitic forms. These are found 49

throughout the Kemiren data as first-person-singular =(n)isun and second-person-singular

=(n)ira, as seen in the following examples.

(10) Myane sing byarengan nyang Mr. Jerry iku jarenisun. So.that NEG together LOC Mr. Jerry that DP say=1SG “So that [the event is] not concurrent with Mr. Jerry’s, in my opinion.”

(11) Byaksonira muko endyai. Meatball.soup=2SG earlier.that where “Where did your meatball soup go?”

Another relevant aspect of morphosyntax in the Kemiren data is the frequent use of several discourse particles specific to Osing. Particles ro, o, kek, , and a are among the most frequent. In addition, discourse particle ya (as seen in (10)) is also very common throughout all data, although this is not specific to Osing. (For more on ya in Indonesian discourse, see Wouk, 2001.)

2.2.1.4. Summary

This section has shown the frequencies and proportions of palatalized consonants and diphthongized vowels in the Kemiren data. Palatalization occurs 42% of the time in

PFEs, and stop consonants are far more frequently palatalized than glides and nasals.

Diphthongization occurs 66% of the time in DFEs, with [au] diphthongization somewhat more frequent than [ai] diphthongization. I have also shown some lexical and morphosyntactic features of the Kemiren data. I turn now to analysis of linguistic features from a neighboring community. 50

2.2.2. Osing in desa Tamansuruh

The example I am presenting from desa Tamansuruh—an Osing-speaking community just west of Kemiren—is a conversation between three women, aged 41, 42, and 61

(“Nadine,” “Tammy,” and “Ophelia,” respectively). Ophelia and Nadine are mother and daughter; Tammy is their neighbor.

2.2.2.1. Phonology

I begin this section with a table illustrating patterns of palatalization in this conversation.

Table 7 follows the format of Table 5 and also includes totals from the Kemiren data.

The Tamansuruh recording includes 88 tokens of palatalization and 268 PFEs, or roughly a 33% yield of tokens of palatalization. This is a lower result than that which was found in Kemiren (roughly 42%). The three women produced tokens of palatalization in 33%,

37%, and 28% of PFEs, respectively. One interesting point of comparison between this recording and the recording from Kemiren is the overall palatalization of /g/ ([gʲ]) in

PFEs.

As shown in Table 7, 71% of /g/ tokens in PFEs produced palatalization in both recordings, and each recording produced exactly the same number of tokens of [gʲ]—17 tokens in 24 PFEs in each recording. However, the proportion of [gʲ] tokens among all palatalized tokens differs across recordings. [gʲ] tokens account for nearly one fifth of all palatalized tokens in “Tamansuruh,” but less than one tenth of all palatalized tokens in

“Kemiren”. Some other differences can be observed, as well, such as the relatively low percentage of (palatalized) [dʲ] tokens in the Tamansuruh recording.

51

PALATALIZATION,

“TAMANSURUH”

TOTAL TOTAL Proportion Proportion palatal- palatal- of each of each ization by ization by palatalized palatalized Nadine Tammy Ophelia consonant consonant consonant: consonant: (age 41) (age 42) (age 61) in PFEs: in PFEs: this this recording Kemiren recording Kemiren STOPS 100% 100% 67% 94% 91% [bʲ] (11 of (14 of (4 of (29 of 31) (93 of 102) .33 .38 11) 14) 6) 33% 17% 43% 32% 93% [dʲ] (3 of (1 of (3 of (7 of 22) (43 of 46) .08 .17 9) 6) 7) 89% 100% 25% 71% 77% [ɖʲ] (8 of (1 of (1 of (10 of 14) (27 of 35) .11 .11 9) 1) 4) 65% 80% 60% 71% 71% [gʲ] (11 of (4 of (3 of (17 of 24) (17 of 24) .19 .07 17) 5) 5)

GLIDES 28% 0% 25% 23% 49% [wʲ] (5 of (0 of (1 of (6 of 26) (33 of 67) .07 .13 18) 4) 4) 14% 25% 25% 17% 20% [rʲ] (3 of (1 of (1 of (5 of 30) (15 of 75) .06 .06 22) 4) 4) 13% 0% 7% 8% 5% [lʲ] (2 of (0 of (1 of (3 of 40) (4 of 82) .03 .02 16) 10) 14)

NASALS 12% 18% 20% 15% 9% [mʲ] (4 of (4 of (2 of (10 of 66) (11 of 117) .11 .04 34) 22) 10) 9% 0% 0% 7% 9% [ŋʲ] (1 of (0 of (0 of (1 of 15) (4 of 45) .01 .02 11) 1) 3)

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL palatal- palatal- (above (above palatal 33% 37% 28% ization ization proportions proportions -ization (48 of (25 of (16 of in PFEs: in PFEs: total total by 147) 67) 57) 33% 42% .99) 1.0) speaker (88 of (247 of 268) 593)

Table 7: Palatalization in desa Tamansuruh, compared with desa Kemiren 52

That said, the overall proportions of stop consonants in “Tamansuruh” and “Kemiren” are

.71 and .73, respectively. I return to a discussion of these proportions in §2.3.

Like the conversation from Kemiren, this recording also includes tokens of palatalization before [ɔ]. One contains the stem kulon (‘west’), which is again realized with palatalized /l/ ([lʲ]). Across both recordings, there are no tokens of non-palatalized kulon. This strengthens the argument that the pronunciation [kulʲɔn] may be lexicalized for Osing speakers. Other lexical issues are addressed in §2.2.2.2.

DIPHTHONGIZATION,

“TAMANSURUH”

TOTAL TOTAL Pro- Pro- diphthongs diphthongs portion portion Nadine Tammy Ophelia by vowel by vowel of each of each (age 41) (age 42) (age 61) In DFEs: in DFEs: diphthong: diphthong: this this recording Kemiren Recording Kemiren

30% 44% 40% 38% 60% /i/ > (3 of (4 of (2 of (9 of (43 of .50 .42 [ai] 10) 9) 5) 24) 72) 28% 0% 36% 27% 72% /u/ > (5 of (0 of (4 of (9 of (59 of .50 .58 [au] 18) 4) 11) 33) 82)

TOTAL TOTAL diphthong diphthong TOTAL -ization -ization diphthong 29% 31% 38% in DFEs: in DFEs:

-ization (8 of (4 of (6 of this

by 28) 13) 16) recording Kemiren speaker 32% 66% (18 of (102 of 57) 154)

Table 8: Patterns of diphthongization in Tamansuruh, compared with Kemiren 53

As shown in Table 8, there is considerably less diphthongization in the Tamansuruh data, with only 32% diphthongization in DFEs, compared to 66% in Kemiren. In interviews, consultants from Tamansuruh suggest their speech variety is, in some ways, not as

“authentic” as Kemiren (see Chapter 4). This may reflect an awareness of differences in patterns such as diphthongization, among other differences. However, the overall proportions of [ai] and [au] diphthongization across these two recordings are similar, as shown in the far-right columns of Table 8.

2.2.2.2. Lexical features and morphosyntax

The forms of negative particle sing/hing are relatively evenly distributed in this dataset, with 18 tokens of sing and 20 tokens of hing. The Kemiren data, by comparison, has nearly twice as many tokens of sing than hing. Again, I have no evidence to suggest these forms are motivated by any phonological or morphosyntactic conditions; however, future research may reveal some as-yet-undiscovered properties.

Personal pronouns take the forms isun/hun (1SG and 1SG:POSS) and rika/ira

(2SG and 2SG:POSS). The second-person-singular forms hira and sira found in the

Kemiren data are absent from this dataset. Further, unlike the Kemiren data, there are no morphological pronominal clitic forms =(n)isun or =(n)ira.

Particles ro, o, kek, ta, and a are used throughout the Tamansuruh data, as they are in the Kemiren data. Also like the Kemiren dataset, suffix /-aken/ takes the forms [kaʔən]

(following a vowel) and [aʔən] (following a consonant). Again, this is relevant for comparison with the public performance data in §2.3. 54

2.2.3. Javanese in kecamatan Tegaldlimo

My brief analysis of Banyuwangi Javanese is based on conversation data collected in kecamatan Tegaldlimo, the southeasternmost kecamatan in Banyuwangi regency.

Tegaldlimo is considered by all consultants—and all prior literature on Osing—to be well outside the Osing-speaking area of Banyuwangi. The recorded conversations comprising this dataset are entirely Javanese (according to the consultants), and therefore represent the easternmost variety of Javanese spoken on Java, serving as a point of comparison between Banyuwangi Javanese and varieties of Osing.

There is exactly one token of palatalization in the recordings of Javanese conversation from Tegaldlimo (see Table 9), and no tokens of diphthongization (see

Table 10). Otherwise, the consonant and vowel inventories match those described above.

One interesting aspect of morphosyntax from this dataset is the absence of causative- applicative -aken, which is found in Osing and other varieties of Javanese, as described above. In the variety of Javanese spoken in this area of Banyuwangi, -(n)e and -i instead fill this role. Lastly, outside of shared vocabulary there are no strictly Osing lexical items in this dataset. To summarize: The variety of Javanese spoken in this area of Banyuwangi differs in several ways from the variety of Osing spoken in Kemiren and Tamansuruh.

55

PALATALIZATION, “TEGALDLIMO”

TOTAL pro- Barry Van Olga Pablo Fern Renzo Erin palatal- portion (age (age (age (age (age (age (age ization by among 58) 55) 54) 31) 55) 50) 43) consonant all IN PFEs STOPS 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% [bʲ] (0 of (1 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 1.0 (1 of 76) 23) 24) 6) 4) 3) 12) 4) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [dʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 42) 8) 26) 4) 1) 2) 0) 1) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [ɖʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 7) 0) 6) 1) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [gʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 76) 12) 40) 5) 2) 2) 11) 4)

GLIDES 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [wʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 34) 11) 17) 2) 0) 0) 3) 1) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [rʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 71) 10) 47) 5) 5) 0) 4) 0) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [lʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 82) 13) 37) 14) 4) 0) 10) 4)

NASALS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [mʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 83) 16) 44) 7) 4) 3) 7) 2) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% [ŋʲ] (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 0.0 (0 of 49) 14) 22) 6) 1) 1) 5) 0)

TOTAL TOTAL palatal- (above palatal 0% 0.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ization pro- -ization (0 of (1 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of IN PFEs: portions by 107) 263) 50) 21) 11) 52) 16) 0.2% total speaker (1 of 520) 1.0)

Table 9: Palatalization percentages and proportions, Tegaldlimo 56

DIPHTHONGIZATION, “TEGALDLIMO”

TOTAL Barry Van Olga Pablo Fern Renzo Erin pro- diphthongs (age (age (age (age (age (age (age portion by vowel 58) 55) 54) 31) 55) 50) 43) of each IN DFEs

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /i/ > (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 64) .00 [ai] 11) 28) 8) 2) 3) 9) 3) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% /u/ > (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of 17) .00 [au] 5) 4) 1) 0) 1) 3) 3)

TOTAL TOTAL diphthong- (above diphthong 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ization pro- -ization (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of (0 of IN DFEs: portions by 16) 32) 9) 2) 4) 12) 6) 0% total speaker (0 of 0.0) 81)

Table 10: Patterns of diphthongization in Tegaldlimo

In the following section I return to discussing Osing, comparing a variety of Osing in a public performance with the conversation data from Kemiren and Tamansuruh.

2.3. Overview of Osing in public performances

On September 24, 2016, I attended the “Lalare Osing” event at Gesibu Banyuwangi, a public venue located in the “city” area of Banyuwangi. This event, produced by the local festival and culture office, featured the music of 100 Banyuwangi children performing in unison. The event also featured comic relief between music performances, with two actors playing the roles of Osingers and a third person as a clueless, stubborn Madurese 57

man11. The entire dialogue revolves around a plot: A stubborn Madurese guy is trying

(but not trying too hard because he’s proud and stubborn) to learn some Osing from the two emcees, but fails miserably and hilariously at every turn due to confusion over near- homonyms. The confusion (and comedy) primarily depends on lexical and phonological differences between Osing and Madurese. An /u/-/o/ distinction comes into play several times—for example, when one of the actors uses the word ngumpul ‘to gather’ and the

Madurese character misinterprets this as [Madurese] ngompol ‘to pee oneself’—to the crowd’s delight.

Although the actors filled roles as walking, talking commodities of Osingness—in clear contrast with the (non-Osing) Madurese character—and much of their dialogue was metalanguage about Osing, this event was overtly a celebration of Banyuwangi arts and culture. The emcees and other speakers (including the mayor of Banyuwangi) made little mention of Osing, pointing instead to the importance of this and other events as a means to capitalize on semua potensi yang ada di Banyuwangi (‘the whole of Banyuwangi’s potential’).

Following the 2016 performance I obtained a recording of the event from its producers. I have transcribed and analyzed the dialogues from this performance. I have also acquired recordings of the 2015, 2017, and 2018 versions of this event (now

11 This troupe goes by the name “Pelangi,” short for Pelawak Banyuwangi (‘Banyuwangi comedians’). Pelangi also means ‘rainbow’ in Indonesian, Javanese, and Osing. This troupe commonly exploits local stereotypes of Banyuwangi’s ethnic-Madurese population in its performances. 58

renamed “Lalare Orchestra Concert”), affording me the opportunity—in future work—to compare data over a four-year span.

The following analyses focus on two segments from (just) the 2016 event, which total just over 13 minutes in length. In the following sections I will demonstrate some differences between the performance data and the conversation data.

2.3.1. Phonology and hyper-use of phonological variables

The two Osing characters12 produced 128 tokens of palatalization in 390 PFEs, or roughly a 33% yield of tokens of palatalization13. This is a similar percentage of palatalization to that which was found in the “Tamansuruh” and recording (also roughly

33%). However, the patterns of palatalization in “Lalare Osing” are in fact quite different from those found in household conversation data. When viewed solely as total percentages, it appears as though the patterns of palatalization among these three recordings are similar. Table 11 shows that in PFEs across recordings, /b/ is likely to be palatalized, while /ŋ/ is unlikely to be palatalized.

Among stop consonants in PFEs, 87% are palatalized in the Kemiren data, 70% are palatalized in the Tamansuruh data, and 86% are palatalized in the Lalare Osing data.

The somewhat lower percentage of stop-consonant palatalization in PFEs in the

Tamansuruh data is due specifically to the relatively less-frequently palatalized /d/.

12 I analyzed only the speech of the two “Osing” characters, as the third character (the Madurese character) was not using palatalization in his dialogue. 13 Despite their frequency in the data, palatalization and diphthongization were not used as comedy props in this performance. 59

PALATALIZATION,

“LALARE OSING”

TOTAL Proportion TOTAL palatalization Proportion of each palatal- by consonant of each palatalized Ali Nyet ization by in PFEs: palatalized consonant: (age (age consonant Tamansuruh consonant: Tamansuruh 30s) 30s) In PFEs: (LEFT) and this (LEFT) and this Kemiren recording KEMIREN recording (RIGHT) (RIGHT) STOPS 100% 92% 95% 94% 91% [bʲ] .61 .33 .38 (31/31) (47/51) (78 of 82) (29/31) (93/102) 80% 56% 68% 32% 93% [dʲ] .10 .08 .17 (8/10) (5/9) (13 of 19) (7/22) (43/46) 83% 100% 93% 71% 77% [ɖʲ] .11 .11 .11 (5/6) (9/9) (14 of 15) (10/14) (27/35) 75% 50% 64% 71% 71% [gʲ] .11 .19 .07 (9/12) (5/10) (14 of 22) (17/24) (17/24)

GLIDES 10% 13% 12% 23% 49% [wʲ] .02 .07 .13 (1/10) (2/15) (3 of 25) (6/26) (33/67) 11% 7% 9% 17% 20% [rʲ] .02 .06 .06 (2/18) (1/14) (3 of 32) (5/30) (15/75) 0% 0% 0% 8% 5% [lʲ] .00 .03 .02 (0/47) (0/54) (0 of 101) (3/40) (4/82)

NASALS 4% 3% 4% 15% 9% [mʲ] .02 .11 .04 (1/27) (1/30) (2 of 57) (10/66) (11/117) 0% 4% 3% 7% 9% [ŋʲ] .01 .01 .02 (0/12) (1/25) (1 of 37) (1/15) (4/45)

TOTAL palatal Total palatalization -ization in PFEs: TOTAL in PFEs: Tamansuruh palatal 33% 33% this (LEFT) and -ization (57 of (71 of recording Kemiren (RIGHT) by 173) 217)

speaker 33% 33% 42% (128 of (88 of (247 of 390) 268) 593)

Table 11: Palatalization, “Lalare Osing” performance and conversation data 60

More important for my analysis, however, is the difference in the proportion of palatalized tokens for each consonant across recordings. The percentage of /b/ tokens realized as [bʲ] is consistently high across recordings; however, the proportion of [bʲ] tokens among all palatalized tokens is much higher in the “Lalare Osing” recording, accounting for more than three fifths of all tokens of palatalization (shown in the upper- right corner of Table 11). I return to a discussion of this in §2.3.2.

This recording also contains the only token of a palatalized voiceless consonant, which is unexpected based on the patterns found in conversation data as well as prescriptive views about palatalization. In (12), the speaker palatalizes /b/ in the word hebat (‘great’ in Indonesian and Osing). The word tangan means ‘hand’ in both

Indonesian and Osing; the /ŋ/ is not palatalized here, and there are no tokens of palatalized /ŋ/ in tangan in this or any other recordings. The word Lalare here refers to

‘children’, i.e. the children performing at this “Lalare Osing” event. Lalare is never palatalized in this recording. Finally, this speaker palatalizes the final word of this intonation unit; this is the only token of a palatalized voiceless consonant in any context, in any recording.

(12) Hebyat tepuk tangan sulung kanggo -lare ikyai. great clap hands first for REDUP-kid these “Wow, great! A round of applause for these kids!”

The underlying word is iki (‘this / these’); sentence-final diphthongization allows ikai, which is well-attested in the data. Palatalized ikyai, however, does not match normative views about the patterns of palatalization. It may be the case that because this speaker was performing Osingness onstage, the unexpected (palatalized) token of ikyai can be 61

considered an overextension of a performative index—although given there is only one token, it is hard to say.

Patterns of diphthongization across recordings show a similar result. Table 12 compares patterns of diphthongization in the Lalare Osing data with the data from

Kemiren and Tamansuruh.

DIPHTHONGIZATION,

“LALARE OSING”

TOTAL Proportion TOTAL diphthongs Proportion of each diphthongs by vowel “Ali” “Nyet” of each diphthong: by vowel in DFEs: (age (age diphthong: Tamansuruh in DFEs: Tamansuruh 30s) 30s) this (LEFT) and this (LEFT) and recording Kemiren recording Kemiren (RIGHT) (RIGHT)

/i/ > 75% 39% 49% 38% 60% .78 .50 .42 [ai] (12/16) (16/41) (28/57) (9/24) (43/72) /u/ > 55% 14% 32% 27% 72% .22 .50 .58 [au] (6/11) (2/14) (8/25) (9/33) (59/82)

TOTAL TOTAL diphthong diphthong -ization -ization in DFEs: TOTAL in DFEs: Tamansuruh palatal this 67% 33% (LEFT) and -ization recording (18/27) (18/55) Kemiren by speaker (RIGHT) 32% 66% 44% (18 of (102 of (36/82) 57) 154)

Table 12: Diphthongization in Lalare Osing, Tamansuruh, and Kemiren

In the recordings from Kemiren and Tamansuruh, there are relatively even splits in the proportions of [ai] and [au] diphthongs, as shown in the rightmost columns of Table 12. 62

However, the proportion of [ai] diphthongs in the “Lalare Osing” recording is more heavily weighted, with [ai] accounting for 78% of all diphthongs.

I turn now to a discussion of lexical choice in this recording.

2.3.2. Lexical choice

The previous section illustrated phonological differences between the “Lalare Osing” recording and the recordings from household conversations in Kemiren and Tamansuruh.

These phonological differences are seen quantitatively by comparing proportions of palatalization and diphthongization. I will now discuss some of the word choices that contribute to these differences.

Palatalized /b/ in Byanyuwangi appears five times in this recording along with two non-palatalized tokens. Although there are no tokens of palatalized Byanyuwangi in any recorded conversation or interview data, this pronunciation is popular in public performances (see also §3.3.1) and metalanguage discussions about Osing (from my personal experience). This off-the-shelf commodity combines Osingness and

Banyuwanginess, serving to index the speaker’s local authenticity.

Along with ikyai, which was discussed in §2.3.1, two other palatalized tokens are worthy of mention in this section. The word for ‘language’ in Indonesian is bahasa; the cognate form in Javanese is basa. In most Central- and East-Javanese varieties, as discussed in §2.1.1 and in Nothofer (2006), “the phoneme /a/ appears as [ɔ] word-finally and in penultimate open syllables where a following open syllable has /a/” (Nothofer,

2006: 114). The same phonological pattern is found throughout recorded Osing conversation data, and there is one token of [bɔsɔ] (basa) in the Tamansuruh data. In the 63

“Lalare Osing” performance, there are tokens of (palatalized) [bʲasa] and [bʲahasa], one from each performer. The /b/ in [bʲasa] occurs before [a], allowing its palatalization; however, this [a] is unexpected in this (Javanese and Osing) lexical item. Similarly, the

/b/ in [bʲahasa] occurs before [a], yet this is also unexpected given bahasa is an

Indonesian word, and not found in Javanese or Osing.

These tokens and others suggest that the performers were using a stylized speech variety with unexpected palatalization in certain lexical items. The major difference between the performance data and the conversation data—that is, the difference between the proportions of [bʲ] among all tokens of palatalization (shown in the upper-right corner of Table 11)—further suggests that the Lalare Osing performers may be selecting lexical items with /b/ in PFEs, consciously or unconsciously creating the phonological environments for palatalization. Similarly, frequent /i/-final words provide a familiar context for diphthongization.

2.3.3. Morphosyntax

There are some relevant morphosyntactic differences between this data set and the

Kemiren and Tamansuruh data—three of which I will highlight here. First, causative- applicative /-aken/ is realized as [akən]/[kakən] in 15 out of 19 tokens (c.f. [aʔən]/[kaʔən] throughout the Kemiren and Tamansuruh data). Second, the Lalare Osing data has nearly twice as many tokens of hing than sing, while the Kemiren data has nearly twice as many tokens of sing than hing. (Sing and hing are relatively evenly distributed in the

Tamansuruh data.) Third, there are no tokens of morphological pronominal enclitics

=(n)isun or =(n)ira in this dataset. Lastly, there are no tokens of discourse particles ro, o, 64

or kek, all of which are frequently used throughout the Kemiren and Tamansuruh data.

The absence of these features further illustrate the difference between this stylized variety of Osing and the varieties found in household conversations.

2.4. Summary

In this chapter I have illustrated features of Osing from three contexts, comparing varieties found in household conversations with a stylized variety used in a public performance. I have shown the variability of some features that are commonly discussed as fixed properties of Osing and have provided a glimpse into one manifestation of the state-sponsored vitalization of the language—namely the patterns of palatalization and diphthongization in performance data, which are quite different from those found in household conversation data and represent a stylized, idealized variety of Osing. The selection of lexical items favorable to palatalization and diphthongization suggests that palatalization and diphthongization are among the primary linguistic indices—in fact commodities—of performing an Osing identity.

In the following chapter I expand on the sociocultural status of Osing, its commodification, and its evolution in the public sphere. 65

Chapter 3

Osing in the public sphere

I now turn to an analysis of Osing in the public sphere, beginning with a history of its emergence and the genesis of its present-day status as a high-prestige “emblem of regional culture” (Arps, 2009: 4) in Banyuwangi. Through discussion of the current status of Osing and its recent expansion, this chapter continues the trajectory of anthropological works from the 1990s and 2000s, bringing the literature on the expansion of Osing up to date. I discuss the influence of the local (Banyuwangi) government on this expansion, the reflexive processes of commodification, and the mechanisms by which a (formerly) marginalized ethnic group is coming into being as emblematic of regional culture and identity. §3.1 discusses vitalization efforts from the 1970s into the modern day. §3.2 discusses commodification and consumption, and §3.3 discusses public buy-in and the stylization of Osing as an enregistered cultural frame.

66

3.1. Vitalization and promotion

Arps (2010)14 categorizes several stages of the evolution of the socio-cultural status of

Osing from the 1970s to 2009. He describes a “discourse of loss” (Arps, 2010: 232) in the

1970s among intellectuals from Banyuwangi and elsewhere who recognized the spread of

Indonesian (as the national language) as a threat to local languages. This discourse was

“based on ideological circumstances and some ideological choices, as well” (Arps, 2010:

226). The author summarizes these ideological factors:

“The idea that a nation has a language (along with its literature) comes from the German philosophy of the eighteenth century, but has now become part of language ideology throughout the world, not least the Republic of Indonesia. This idea is an absolute element of what is called nationalism. This element of nationalism also appears on a smaller scale. In some parts of Indonesia, for example, one can observe the formation and dissemination of the assumption that an administrative region—usually a district, sometimes a province— should have a language (and literature) of its own, which is called a regional language” (Arps, 2010: 226–7).

Although the initial processes of vitalization (i.e. the “discourse of loss” and subsequent documentary research) began in the 1970s, it was not until the 1990s before the language variety ‘Using’—named as such—first entered the public sphere15. Arps (2009: 3) refers to the emergence of the (named) language variety in discussing the author’s personal

14 This article is written in Indonesian. All English translations are my own. 15 I have found only two references to the Osing/Using language that were published prior to 1990: the Herusantosa dissertation mentioned in §2.1.2 (Herusantosa, 1987) and the eleventh edition of Ethnologue (Grimes, 1988: 504). 67

experience in Indonesia: “In 1983, when I started research on language and performance in Banyuwangi, it was still common for speakers of the local language to identify themselves and their speech as Javanese (Jawa). Two and a half decades later this categorization has become unusual, at least in public.”

The popularization of Osing is rooted in nationalistic ideologies, as the perceived threat of nationalism (i.e. the spread of Indonesian) has been countered by what Arps

(2010: 226) refers to as “small-scale” nationalism (i.e. efforts to vitalize the local language). Billig’s (1995) suggestion that “language does not create nationalism, so much as nationalism creates language” (Billig, 1995: 30), is a fitting characterization of the basis of language vitalization efforts in Banyuwangi. However, the emergence of ‘Osing’ in the public sphere and its subsequent popularization and expansion is due to other factors, as well—namely, the mutually-constitutive processes of commodification and consumption. The following sections discuss these processes and the evolution of the status of Osing in the public sphere.

Public recognition of the Using language is said to have begun in 1990 at an event named “Using Language Week”. (Arps, 2010: 234). Prior to this event, all but one resource on the local language (see §2.1.2) referred to the ‘dialect’ or ‘language’ of

Banyuwangi. It was at this event that local cultural activist Hasan Ali advocated for corpus planning resources (e.g., public school textbooks) and the “codification of language and vocabulary norms” (Arps, 2010: 234). As the (then) head of Dewan

Kesenian Blambangan (‘Blambangan Arts Council’) Ali published a booklet on spelling guides the following year, and continued his work on an Osing dictionary and grammar. 68

Following Ali’s presentations at the first two meetings of the Javanese Language

Congress (1991 and 1996), the Ministry of Education and Culture gave formal approval for Osing to be taught in schools in Banyuwangi. Teaching began in three kecamatan

(‘districts’) in November 1997: kecamatan Glagah, Banyuwangi and Rogojampi

(Antariksawan Jusuf, p.c.).

Figure 7: Banyuwangi Regency: Kecamatan Glagah, Banyuwangi, & Rogojampi

Six years later, a statute by Banyuwangi’s mayor mandated the implementation of Osing language instruction in elementary school in all districts of Banyuwangi Regency

(Samsul Hadi, 2003a: 1). In 2007, ten years after Osing was first taught in schools, it was formally declared by the next mayor of Banyuwangi that “Using language instruction must be carried out at all levels of basic education, both public and private, in

Banyuwangi Regency” (Lestari, 2007: 3). This formal regulation also states that “Using 69

is a language that is marked by regional characteristics, inherited and maintained from generation to generation, developing along with the growth of the pioneers of

Banyuwangi society” (Lestari, 2007: 3; emphasis mine). As of 2017, Osing is taught in all 25 districts of Banyuwangi, despite the fact that many of these districts (for example,

Tegaldlimo; see §2.2.3) remain well outside of what could be considered the “Osing- speaking area” of Banyuwangi.

The ideologically-based language emphasized in the 2007 regulation is consistent with language found in a 2007 regulation set forth by Indonesia’s Ministry of Internal

Affairs, which states that “regional languages, as the main pillar and the biggest contributor to the country’s language vocabulary as well as the national cultural wealth, need to be preserved and developed” (Widodo AS., 2007: 1). The regulation itself is a set of general guidelines for heads of regional governments in the preservation and development of regional languages, and is part of a national effort to vitalize them.

Vitalization of Osing, as an ideologically-driven process, has co-occurred with the profit-driven, state-sponsored commodification of Osing. The following section discusses some features of this state-sponsored commodification as well as the mutually- constitutive processes of commodification and consumption.

3.2. Commodification and consumption

Banyuwangi has used elements of Osing language and culture to promote tourism to the region since at least 2002. As mayor, Osing cultural activist Samsul Hadi issued several decrees to “increase the promotion of tourism in Banyuwangi”. One decree named the image of the Gandrung dancer as Banyuwangi’s official “Tourism Mascot” (Samsul 70

Hadi, 2002: 1); another named the Gandrung dance as the “Welcome Dance” of

Banyuwangi (Samsul Hadi, 2003: 1); and another named an Osing-language song as the

“Spirit” (as in enthusiasm) song of Banyuwangi (Samsul Hadi, 2003b: 1). The explicit mention of the goal of increasing tourism is evidence of a process of commodification which co-occurs with ideologically-driven efforts to vitalize Osing.

More recently, Banyuwangi’s Department of Tourism has published annual festival calendars which label Banyuwangi as “Festival City” and highlight each year’s

“top” events, with the number of events increasing year after year. In February 2017, and again in February 2018, Banyuwangi was awarded the title “Best Festival City in

Indonesia” by Indonesia’s Minister of Tourism (Anonymous; referenced at

/en.antaranews.com). The same award was given to Banyuwangi for the third consecutive year on January 29, 2019 (Setiawan, 2019). It is not clear whether other Indonesian cities were considered for this award, as no “runners-up” are mentioned in any publicly available sources. Further, the current Minister of Tourism happens to be a Banyuwangi native, and could therefore perhaps be perceived as biased or at least as an active participant in Banyuwangi’s promotion of tourism. Regardless, with over 99 events in

2019—many of which span several days—Banyuwangi is committed to promoting itself as Indonesia’s “Festival City,” frequently employing elements of Osing cultural media

(e.g. dance, rituals, music) as festival themes.

Several academic works have been devoted to each of the main Osing cultural media due to the efforts of Bernard Arps, Robert Wessing (Wessing, 2012), and other scholars. Arps (2009) discusses “emblems of regional culture” (Arps, 2009: 4), describing the local Gandrung dance as “an Osing genre embraced as the Banyuwangi 71

performing art par excellence since the early twentieth century” and how an image of a gandrung dancer has become “the official maskot of the regency” (Arps, 2009: 6).

Figure 8: Gandrung dancer statue at Watu Dodol

The gandrung dancer pictured above (Fauziah, 2016: 114) is an iconic image of Osing culture in Banyuwangi. As Setiawan and Tallapessy (Setiawan & Tallapessy, 2016: 2) argue, this cultural frame has been successfully (for better or for worse) co-opted by the local government, which regularly incorporates gandrung into festivals. One festival in particular involves over 1,000 young dancers, all performing gandrung in unison. For a young woman in Banyuwangi, participating in gandrung culture (dancing, attending dance events, owning gandrung dance clothing) is almost a requirement.

Due to recent popularization efforts by local government, primary elements of

Osing culture are identifiable, ubiquitous, and as Setiawan and Tallapessy (2016) argue, commodified (Setiawan & Tallapessy, 2016: 4). The authors are critical of the incorporation of Osing cultural elements such as batik, food, fruits, coffee, and even a 72

fertility ritual16 into state-sponsored festivals and tourism programs (Setiawan &

Tallapessy, 2016: 2). The authors do not discuss the linguistic commodification of Osing as part of this. With regard to commodification, I am primarily concerned with the idea that indices of Osingness are elements of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984) used by different people to “situate themselves in social space” (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006: 167).

There are many cultural indices of Osingness, as well as linguistic indices of Osingness.

For the Osing individual, these indices are cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984), used to situate oneself in social space as Osing.

For example, Banyuwangi has several styles/motifs of batik, most notably the style known as gajah oling. This motif is far and away the most popular and iconic batik motif in Banyuwangi and is commonly associated with Osing culture. In addition to the gajah oling motif, the udeng headdress is ubiquitous in Banyuwangi. The udeng headdress and the unique gajah oling batik motif, along with Gandrung dancer imagery and Banyuwangi’s designated barong mask (see Figure 9) are some of the primary visual indices of Osingness.

16 Wessing (2012) describes in detail this fertility ritual, known as Seblang. 73

Figure 9: Visual indices of Osingness

The visual indices of Osingness shown in Figure 9 (clockwise from top left: the udeng headdress; the gandrung dancer; the gajah oling batik motif; barong Osing) were formerly associated exclusively with Osing ethnicity. In the present day, each of these indices, or elements of cultural capital, are not only indices of Osingness but are also indices of Banyuwanginess. The udeng headdress is the headdress of Banyuwangi; gandrung is commonly referred to as ‘gandrung Banyuwangi’; the gajah oling batik motif is normally simply ‘batik Banyuwangi’; and ‘barong Osing’ is interchangeable with

‘barong Banyuwangi’. Put simply, Osing traditions have become Banyuwangi traditions through the very recent, widespread commodification and adoption of Osing cultural practices.

There are many ways in which the local government and other profit-driven stakeholders have commodified elements of Osing language and culture. The success of this top-down status planning is reflected in the widespread “consumption” of elements 74

of Osing language and culture, a reflexive and mutually constitutive activity “by which individuals express identity and use it to forge solidarity with other members of society”

(Benwell & Stokoe, 2006: 170). I now turn to discussion of stylization as one such activity.

3.3. Stylization

Chapter 2 showed that consultants regularly refer to phonological patterns of diphthongization and palatalization—which are specific to Osing and not present in

Banyuwangi Javanese—along with a handful of lexical items, including personal pronouns (see §2.2.1, §2.2.2, and 2.2.3). These two phonological patterns and lexical items are among the primary linguistic indices of Osingness. One familiar lexical index of Osingness is the local (occasional) pronunciation of the name Banyuwangi, which contains both palatalization and diphthongization when realized as [bʲaɲuwaŋai] (c.f.

[baɲuwaŋi]; see §2.3.2 for discussion of the use of palatalized [bʲaɲuwaŋi] in public performances).

Among the 20 consultants I interviewed in 2016 and 2017, 15 consultants discuss linguistic features of Osing. Of these 15, all mention personal pronouns, and usually before any of the other indices (such as diphthongization and palatalization). Even non- speakers (i.e., Banyuwangi residents who do not identify as Osing and do not consider themselves speakers of Osing) are familiar with at least two: Isun (1st-person singular) and rika (2nd-person singular; sometimes spelled ‘riko’ as a reflection of its pronunciation). It would be difficult to find a song produced in Banyuwangi without one or both of these pronouns. 75

There are a handful of other words locals reliably refer to when talking about

Osing. Dhemen (‘love’) is probably the most common. With the above personal pronouns, the three-word construction Isun dhemen rika (‘I love you’) is found in many interviews, on T-shirts and other Osing merchandise, and is a quick and easy index of

Osingness. Kelendi (‘how’) is another common index of Osing, found frequently as part of the greeting kelendi kabare (‘how’s it going?’ or ‘what’s new?’)—with palatalized /b/ in kabare17. It is also commonly used alone as a question word, either as diphthongized

[kələndai] or as [kələndʲai], the /ai/ diphthong providing the phonological environment for palatalized [dʲ]. Another question word, paran (‘what’) might be the single most well- known Osing word due to its frequency and its striking difference between Javanese and

Indonesian apa (‘what’). The word often appears on Osing-themed merchandise and is readily given as an example of Osing in interviews and metalanguage discussions—it could be argued that if a person knows no other word in Osing, they will know paran.

These words have been vernacularized throughout Banyuwangi and are part of the stylistic practice—“the interpretation and production of style” (Eckert, 2008: 456)—of

Osing identity. The process of stylistic practice, according to Eckert (2008), “begins when the stylistic agent perceives an individual or group style—perhaps the style will bring his or her attention to those who use it; perhaps the users will call attention to the style. But the noticing of the style and the noticing of the group or individual that uses it are mutually reinforcing, and the meaning of the style and its users are reciprocal. The

17 Root word kabar means ‘news’ in Indonesian, Javanese, and Osing. 76

style itself will be noticed in the form of features that the stylistic agent separates out for notice” (Eckert, 2008: 457).

Agha (2004) refers to registers as “open cultural systems in the sense that once a distinct register is culturally recognized as existing within a language (emphasis mine), its repertoires are susceptible to further reanalysis and change” (Agha, 2004: 30). In the context of Banyuwangi, Osing is becoming enregistered—that is, “widely recognized”

(Agha, 2007: 235)—and therefore adaptable for stylistic practice. In discussing the social expansion of registers, Agha (2003) argues that “[social expansion] is mediated, in particular, by processes of role alignment (emphasis original)” (Agha, 2003: 243). A person may, consciously or unconsciously, “seek to align his or her own self-image with the characterological figures” (i.e. identity categories or social groupings) linked to a particular register (Agha, 2007: 133; 203). In the following subsections I discuss three cases of role alignment in the public sphere in which public performers commodify Osing through stylized speech. Through imitating and approximating a socially valued speech variety, these performers index their own image and status as aligned with the style and prestige of Osing. Following these three case studies I discuss the emergence of the spelling ‘Osing’ as an act of identification and how its use reflects the expansion of the language, role alignment, and stylistic practice.

3.3.1. “Wayang Osing”

One 2017 episode (Rosmasari, 2017) of Inside Indonesia—a television series produced by CNN Indonesia—was devoted to showcasing elements of Osing language and culture.

The program features interviews with public figures in Banyuwangi and scenes of Osing 77

rituals and traditions. One major sub-theme is “Wayang Osing,” described as the

Banyuwangi version of the traditional wayang shadow-puppet performance familiar throughout much of Java.

Figure 10: “Wayang Osing” scene from Inside Indonesia (Rosmasari, 2017)

Figure 10 shows a view of the dalang (‘puppetmaster’) behind the curtain, narrating and acting out the scenes of wayang Osing. Notably, this “Banyuwangi tradition” began in

2014, and wayang performances are not otherwise a common tradition in Banyuwangi.

(In an interview during the program, the dalang describes how his idea to develop wayang Osing stemmed from a general lack of enthusiasm in Banyuwangi toward the

Javanese version of wayang.) His wayang Osing performances do not take place regularly but are rather produced on occasion when an interested party (e.g., tour group, television producer) wishes to schedule a performance. 78

The narrative of this version of wayang provides a mystical account of the origins of Banyuwangi in a performative language variety rich with linguistic indices of

Osingness. Tokens of palatalization are represented in bold in the below excerpt. This performative text is highly stylized, and as Eckert (2008) suggests, the style itself is

“noticed in the form of features that the stylistic agent separates out for notice” (Eckert,

2008: 457).

DALANG: Alas ^byanyu, dyadi bukti nyoto, ... Pejuwyang Be^lyam^byangan mbelo negoro. .. U^go, sejarah-sejarah ^Byanyuwangi, .. Pejuwyang-pejuwyang Be^lyam^byangan, .. mbyah buyut i^sun rika ^byeh.

“The forest and the sea have become proof of the warriors of Blambangan having defended the country. And, further, the history of Banyuwangi—the warriors of

Blambangan are the ancestors of us (you and me) all.”

In addition to the hyper-use of palatalization the dalang emphasizes several palatalized syllables, effectively separating these out for notice. The pronunciation of ‘Blambangan’

(the former kingdom in the current region of Banyuwangi) is of particular interest, as in both tokens of the word the speaker palatalizes two consecutive syllables, emphasizing both. Through this performance the dalang combines a mystical story of the origins of

Banyuwangi with stylized speech in an attempt to provide an ‘authentic’ Osing experience. This process is mediated through the production and use of linguistic features that facilitate the “replication of register stereotypes” (Agha, 2004: 27). 79

While this wayang performance constructs Osing as an ancient and enduring part of Banyuwangi’s cultural and historical fabric, there are other register stereotypes available and at play in different contexts. Agha (2004) refers to registers as “open cultural systems in the sense that once a distinct register is culturally recognized as existing within a language, its repertoires are susceptible to further reanalysis and change” (Agha, 2004: 30). The following section discusses one such reanalysis and a repertoire of Osing in an entirely different cultural frame.

3.3.2. Kendhang Kempul

Banyuwangi is famous for its variety of the popular Dangdut style of music, known as

Kendang Kempul. Several Kendang Kempul performers are currently enjoying success well beyond Banyuwangi, most notably the artist “Franklin,”18 who has millions of

YouTube views and notoriety throughout Indonesia. Kendang Kempul reliably calls on

Osing indices for authenticity; it would be a challenge to find a song without several of the phonological and lexical indices listed above (especially palatalization and the personal pronouns isun and rika). Although this musical style is readily available on public radio stations in Banyuwangi, the primary mode of delivery is through music video DVDs (also known as VCDs; Arps, 2009: 14). Seemingly every household enjoys playing these karaoke-style VCDs, each with Osing lyrics at the bottom of the screen. For

18 I have anonymized this name because some of the information in this section was gathered during a sociolinguistic interview with the artist. 80

non-native speakers of Osing, these videos provide a basis for Osingness that can be translated to their personal linguistic repertoires.

During my time in Banyuwangi, one of Franklin’s 2014 songs was far and away the most popular song in all of Banyuwangi, and as of this writing has over 6 million views on YouTube. Analysis of the (sung) lyrics reveals lexical items associated with

Osing, namely the ubiquitous isun and rika. Further, as with the lyrics of his other songs, frequent palatalization matches prescriptive views about Osing. This is relevant because

“Franklin”—a household name in Banyuwangi19—does not speak Osing. Although he is the primary writer for all of his songs, he acknowledges he relies on help from his Osing- speaking manager and other friends for his (Osing) lyrics. The Osing words and phrases that he knows are, according to him, the result of this collaborative songwriting process.

Franklin’s success and the popularity of Osing have been a mutually constitutive process of production and consumption (Benwell & Stokoe, 2006: 171). The basis of

Osing as a regional identity and a symbol of local authenticity— which took root prior to

Franklin’s musical career—provided the conditions for him to freely commodify the language, which he himself claims to not speak. And, through commodification of Osing, this performer has achieved much success, in turn playing a role in the expansion of the popularity of Osing in Banyuwangi.

19 A household name along with many other popular Kendhang Kempul performers. 81

3.3.3. “Festival Patrol”

This section discusses the use of the Osing language at an annual, two-day music competition in Banyuwangi, at which performers from all 25 kecamatan (‘districts’) sing traditional songs. I first attended this event in 2016 and then again in 2017, when I recorded the entire event and interviewed one of the judges. Having attended the event in

2016 I was prepared for the format of the event: Each group is required to perform at least one traditional Osing song, and the groups are judged on their use of Osing language

(and other criteria including showmanship). The recordings from the 2017 event show great linguistic variability, particularly in the final word of one of the required (Osing) songs. The significance of this lies in the fact these singers were—according to one of the main festival organizers, whom I interviewed during the event—being judged on pronunciation.

Among 25 groups, this word—nyembadani (‘to fulfill a need’)—was pronounced four different ways: [ɲəmbʲadʲani] (with ten groups palatalizing both /b/ and /d/);

[ɲəmbʲadani] (with six groups palatalizing /b/ but not /d/); [ɲəmbadʲani] (with one group palatalizing /d/ but not /b/); and [ɲəmbadani] (with five groups palatalizing neither /b/ nor

/d/)20. Truly every plausible permutation of palatalized consonants in this single word was evidenced over the course of this two-day event, reflecting the widest possible range of stylistic reanalysis.

20 The remaining three groups performed a different version of the song, which has a different word in place of nyembadani. 82

According to one of the judges, the proper pronunciation of nyembadani is (non- palatalized) [ɲəmbadani]. However, when I asked whether a pronunciation such as

(palatalized) [ɲəmbʲadʲani] was allowable, he said yes, pointing to the frequent palatalization of /b/ and /d/ in the language variety he referred to as “Bahasa

Banyuwangi” (‘Banyuwangi language’). Ultimately, pronunciation was likely a judging criterion in principle only, as crowd response seemed to be the strongest correlate to the judges’ rankings. Regardless, each of 25 groups—from 25 different kecamatan—chose a pronunciation that was (as the final word of a song) separated out for notice. The four different pronunciations during a two-day festival are further evidence that Osing is becoming enregistered, with repertoires that are “susceptible to further reanalysis and change” (Agha, 2004: 30).

3.3.4. The spelling ‘Osing’ as a marker of identity

According to Sebba (2007), “the tendency of orthography to become a marker of identity is beyond question” (Sebba, 2007: 160). In present-day Banyuwangi, this is very much the case, as the spelling ‘Osing’ has become a badge of local authenticity—having all but fully replaced the spelling ‘Using’. This section deals with how this came to be, and how the spelling ‘Osing’ is used as a marker of identity in Banyuwangi.

Prior to 1947, all written Indonesian references to Osing (ethnicity) used the spelling Oesing. Then, with the 1947 spelling reform, where Indonesian oe was replaced by u, the formal spelling changed to Using. Some official signs reflect this spelling, and proponents of the ‘Using’ spelling (including some local authors and a handful of consultants) readily cite the 1947 spelling reform as evidence of the “correct” spelling. 83

However, this spelling is not uniformly used among Banyuwangians nor by local government. Some official signs use Using, some use Osing, and the less-common Oseng appears on occasion. Perhaps the most prominent example of this variation appears on street signage approaching Kemiren, which labels the village as “the Osing/Using Culture

Village of Kemiren” or “the Osing/Using Culture Tourism Village of Kemiren”. In 2017, the sign overhanging the main entryway to desa Kemiren was replaced, changing the spelling ‘Using’ to ‘Osing’. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show this transformation.

Figure 11: Overhead signage, entry to desa Kemiren (pre-2017)

Figure 12: Overhead signage, entry to desa Kemiren (2017)

In modern-day Indonesian, the written letter u represents /u/, which is realized as [u] or sometimes [ʊ]. As shown in Chapter 2, the (Javanese and Osing) phoneme /u/ is realized as [u] in an open syllable and [ʊ] in a closed syllable. Similarly, Javanese phoneme /i/ is 84

realized as [i] in an open syllable and [ɪ] in a closed syllable. Analysis of the data reveals the most common pronunciation of Osing/Using is [ʊsɪŋ], which would not be expected based solely on the above phonological pattern descriptions; The expected pronunciation would be [usɪŋ], with /u/ realized as [u] in an open syllable and /i/ realized as [ɪ] in a closed syllable. However, Adisasmito-Smith (2004: 54) shows that for mid and high vowels in Eastern Javanese, the penultimate and final vowels are both lax—regardless of whether they are the same vowel—when the final vowel is in a closed syllable (as is the case for the word Using). According to Adisasmito-Smith, this vowel-laxness harmony is specific to East Java (i.e. not found in Central Javanese) and influences bilingual speakers’ vowel production in Indonesian. This pattern accounts for the most common pronunciation [ʊsɪŋ], with two lax vowels. Speakers also produce [osɪŋ] with some regularity in the data, but the pronunciation [usɪŋ] is not found outside of metalanguage discussions. One consultant produced 11 tokens of [usɪŋ] while advocating for the

“correct” spelling ‘Using’ and 57 tokens of [ʊsɪŋ] elsewhere in the interview21. As this illustrates, the spelling of the name of the language is contested, and production may not align with prescriptive attitudes.

Patterns and ideologies about “correctness” naturally influence attitudes toward the spelling of the name of the language. Indices of non-standardness can become

‘triggering devices’ for language attitudes (Niedzielski & Preston, 1999: 28), and for some people in Banyuwangi, the use of (written) non-standard ‘O’ instead of the standard

21 These frequency counts are based on auditory analysis, not acoustic analysis. The perceptual difference between [u] and [ʊ] in these tokens is as clear as the difference between vowel sounds in the English minimal pair ‘cooed’ ([kʰud]) and ‘could’ ([kʰʊd]). 85

‘U’ triggers attitudes of ‘incorrectness’ or ‘sloppiness’. This is evidenced in the published works of prominent author Antariksawan Jusuf—particularly in his blog posts (e.g., Jusuf

(2015; 2015a; 2014)), in which he devotedly advocates for the prescriptively “correct” spelling ‘Using’.

Although the spelling Osing may have been rooted in phonetic representation, its current widespread use is not based on any such ideas of ‘correctness,’ but rather its indexical value as a marker of local authenticity and its “distinction” (Bucholtz & Hall,

2005: 600) from the national identity indexed by the spelling ‘Using’. While the ‘U’ spelling reflects the nation-identity associated with standard formal Indonesian, the ‘O’ spelling is homegrown in Banyuwangi, so to speak—as is the Osing language itself. As an act of distinction, the ‘O’ spelling effectively suppresses (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005: 600) the national identity associated with the ‘U’ spelling. Such “cues of subcultural positioning” serve—consciously or unconsciously—as “an instruction to interpret the discourse as ‘subculturally engaged’ or ‘hip’” (Androutsopoulos, 2000: 527).

The Osing spelling is far and away the preferred spelling among retailers and merchandisers in Banyuwangi, who are successfully catering to this local, subcultural authenticity. In other words, although corpus planners and prescriptivists insist on the spelling ‘Using,’ people and entities concerned with profit use the spelling ‘Osing’. One popular clothing line uses the name “Osing Deles” as a badge of Osingness. “Osing

Deles” means (in Osing) “Osing original” or “purebred Osing”. “KaOsing” (a blend of kaos ‘shirt’ and Osing) is another, somewhat newer clothing store, and there are many other, smaller Osing-themed shops on the periphery. Such brands and labels have major cultural stock; “Osing Deles” T-shirts are wearable commodities of Osingness. 86

Seemingly every young adult displays something with an Osing badge, be it a T-shirt, a bumper sticker, or some other piece of merchandise representing one’s Osingness.

Similarly, the phrase “Lare Osing” (‘Osing kid’; commonly shortened to LarOs) is regularly seen on bumper stickers, mudflaps, and other car window decals. Notably, these ‘Osing kid’ badges are used by adults. ‘Kid’ in this context points to authenticity

(i.e. “I grew up here and am therefore genuinely Osing”). Based on Arps (2009), which discusses Lare Using (LARUS), it seems there has been a major shift over the past several years toward this newer spelling. “Lare Using” and LARUS are for all intents and purposes invisible in present-day Banyuwangi, while “Lare Osing” and LAROS are ubiquitous. In addition, LarOsA (short for Lare Osing Asli ‘Authentic Osing kid’) has emerged very recently as a hyper-authentic badge of Osingness. Presumably, given the widespread popularity of LAROS in Banyuwangi, LAROSA serves to distinguish the badge-wearer as in fact genuinely Osing—and not someone simply hopping on the Osing identity bandwagon. (See Chapter 4 for a full discussion of this emergent, regional identification.)

Importantly, this shift from ‘U’ to ‘O’ in the spelling Osing is a social practice, and as a sign, the written word carries “not only linguistic meaning, but social meaning at the same time” (Sebba, 2007: 7). As Sebba (2007) writes, “in [spaces] where variation occurs (in the form of deviation from the standard), it can fulfil either or both of two roles:

1. It may play a more or less central part in identity construction/creation, including demarcating group boundaries and showing an oppositional stance with respect to the mainstream. 87

2. Through associations with particular identities, it may provide a way of contextualising the text (or parts of it) on the basis of whether it uses, or fails to use, possible variant spellings” (Sebba, 2007: 56).

In Banyuwangi, different stakeholders have different reasons for using Using or

Osing. And in the case of Osing, the spelling represents association with a newly developed regional identity—that of local authenticity, in contrast with the Indonesian nation-identity associated with the Indonesian formal standard spelling Using.

3.4. Summary

In 2017 the Banyuwangi government broke ground on a new wing of the Banyuwangi airport. The primary purpose of this venture was to accommodate larger airplanes and direct flights from Jakarta (and, therefore, increased tourism to Banyuwangi). The buildings of this new wing are being promoted as having been adapted from the architecture of ethnic-Osing homes, in order to make the airport “very Banyuwangi”

(Anas, 2017). This recent example of the commodification of Osing further shows that as a symbol of regional identity and local authenticity, Osingness has become synonymous with Banyuwanginess. The processes of vitalization, commodification, and consumption are enregistering Osing as a cultural frame adaptable for stylistic practice.

Having discussed some of the macro-level issues concerning the popularization of

Osing, I will now turn to micro-level analyses from interviews. The following chapter illustrates the varying attitudes and ideologies about Osing of individual speakers and how these speakers negotiate notions of Osing identity, reflecting the new range of 88

sociocultural values (e.g., “coolness”) associated with this register organization and change (Agha, 2004: 37).

89

Chapter 4

Ideology and Identity

In the previous chapter I have shown how processes of vitalization, commodification, and consumption are enregistering Osing as a cultural frame adaptable for stylistic practice. I have also shown how Osingness (i.e. the stylistic adaptation of elements of Osing language and culture) has become synonymous with Banyuwanginess—as a symbol of regional identity and local authenticity—in the public sphere. This chapter deals with the various ways consultants self-identify in the context of a multi-glossic, multi-ethnic community, providing a micro-level discussion of Osingness and regional identity by way of analyses from interviews. Although all the consultants reside in Banyuwangi, they have differing opinions about who is and who is not Orang Osing, wong Osing, and suku

Osing. Similarly, consultants self-identify differently, based not just on sociocultural factors but also on language ideologies. Consultants negotiate identities during the interviews, reflecting and creating sociolinguistic identities.

Brubaker & Cooper (2000: 10) argue that an essentialist or “strong” conception of identity (i.e. the “emphasis on sameness over time or across persons”) is problematic for analytical purposes. The idea that “identity” can be a fixed and stable property does not hold up under scrutiny; researchers in anthropology and linguistics understand “identity” 90

as emergent and socially constructed, and the ways people identify themselves and others is a focus of much linguistic research. These means of identification are not stable but are rather fluid, and they are negotiated and emerge through discourse. While consultants explain who they “are,” my analyses focus on how they identify themselves and others.

“Identities,” then, refers to the emergent categories negotiated by consultants in explaining who they are.

In interviews, consultants associate ‘suku Osing’ (lit. ‘tribal Osing’ or ‘ethnic

Osing’) with bloodline, while ‘Orang Osing’ and ‘wong Osing’ (lit. ‘Osing person’; terms of Indonesian and Javanese origin, respectively) are regional identity labels which can refer to almost anyone in Banyuwangi, regardless of ethnicity—provided they speak

Osing, participate in Osing culture, or (sometimes) simply live in or near an ethnic-Osing community. This chapter shows that the social expansion of Osingness in recent years is reflected in speakers’ sociolinguistic identities: While “Osing” was primarily associated with an ethnicity as recently as 20 years ago, it now has a supra-ethnic, regional association with Banyuwangi at large. In interviews, consultants negotiate identities (their own and those of others)—determining who is and who is not wong Osing and orang

Osing based on sociocultural factors and language ideologies—reflecting a very recent, state-sponsored recontextualization of Osingness.

§4.1 discusses the varying attitudes and ideologies about Osing of individual speakers and illustrates some dimensions of register organization and change (Agha,

2004: 37), including the new range of “pragmatic values” associated with Osing. §4.2 discusses how consultants negotiate notions of Osing identity during interviews and 91

determine who ‘is’ and ‘is not’ Osing, and §4.3 turns to analyses of short narratives from the interviews, reflecting personal perspectives on the expansion of Osing.

4.1. Ideologies

In Chapter 3 I discussed registers as “open cultural systems” (Agha, 2004: 30) and showed several examples of repertoire reanalysis as evidence of the ongoing process of

Osing becoming enregistered as a cultural frame adaptable for stylistic practice. I also discussed the social expansion of Osing and how this expansion is mediated through role alignment. In discussing “dimensions of register organization and change,” Agha (2004:

37) highlights “repertoire characteristics,” “social domain(s) of the register,” and “range of pragmatic values”. Agha (2004: 37) defines pragmatic values as “stereotypes of user, usage, setting of use” and “positive or negative values associated with the register”. This section examines some of the “pragmatic” (in this sense, sociocultural) values associated with Osing based on interview data.

In a case study of semiotic range in Javanese, Agha (2004: 41) refers to two distinct lexical registers—alus (‘refined, polite’) and kasar (‘coarse’). Javanese lexical registers or “speech levels” are “based on the principle to whom and about whom one talks” (Nothofer, 2006: 114), with the chosen speech level depending on “factors such as age, status, and respect”. Errington (1988: 1) describes the system of Javanese speech levels as “in many ways emblematic of the complexities of Javanese social life,” saying

“these elaborately distinguished ways of speaking are striking and obviously expressive means for mediating social interaction”. 92

The examples in Table 13 and Table 14, adapted from Errington (1988 and 1998, respectively) show the degree to which alus and kasar speech levels differ—both lexically and morphosyntactically.

“Did you take that much rice?” (Adapted from Errington (1988: 90–91)) (alus) Menapa panjenengan mendhet sekul semanten? (kasar) Apa kowe njupuk sega semono? gloss Q 2SG take rice that.much

Table 13: Two Javanese speech levels: “Did you take that much rice?”

“Is this yours?” (Adapted from Errington (1998: 37)) (alus) Menika menapa inggih kagungan panjenengan? (kasar) Iki apa ya dhuwek =mu? gloss this Q yes POSS 2SG

Table 14: Two Javanese speech levels: “Is this yours?”

The number of speech levels in Javanese is considered to be anywhere between two and ten, depending on the researcher’s approach (Suharno, 1982: xii) and representing varying degrees of “politeness” (or “coarseness”). Agha (2004: 41)—whose approach focuses on two speech levels—describes the terms alus and kasar as central to norms of deference and demeanor and that “[t]he forms of the kasar lexical register are grasped by native speakers in terms of highly negative stereotypes of use and user”. He explains cross-modal iconism in cases such as Javanese, “whereby forms of polite speech are treated as resembling signs of other kinds—paralanguage, gesture, body comportment, 93

artifactual accompaniment—in interpersonal significance” (Agha, 2004: 41). He continues:

Such classifications generate likenesses between otherwise disparate signs— clothing, gesture, speech, etc.—by linking all of them to norms of politeness. All of these signs can, moreover, cooccur with each other in social interaction. The fact that sign repertoires in different channels receive a unified (or at least overlapping) metasemiotic treatment has the consequence that certain kinds of socially valued language are felt to be used most felicitously and appropriately when accompanied by certain kinds of non- linguistic displays (Agha, 2004: 41).

In other words, in the case of Javanese, a given spoken register is linked to other semiotic registers, and in the case of kasar, spoken and other semiotic registers comprise “a metasemiotic construct used to typify otherwise disparate phenomenal behaviors” (Agha,

2004: 42). In the case of Javanese, kasar language is linked to kasar behavior and both are associated with negative values.

I asked all 20 consultants to list all the languages spoken in Banyuwangi. All 20 listed both Osing and Javanese, 18 listed Madurese, and 17 listed Indonesian (the three who did not list Indonesian laughed when I reminded them the interview was being conducted in Indonesian, and subsequently added Indonesian to their lists). Balinese,

“Chinese,” and Melayu Bugis were each listed a total of three times by various consultants, and Arabic was listed four times. During my fifth interview I began asking consultants to rank all the languages spoken in Banyuwangi on a scale of “most alus” to

“most kasar”. Among the 13 consultants who provided rankings, all considered Osing and Madurese to be either most or second most kasar (or least polite)—while Javanese 94

and Indonesian ranked either most or second most alus for these consultants. Four consultants distinguished Jawa alus and Jawa kasar as separate language varieties for this exercise, but none ranked Jawa alus or Jawa kasar as more kasar than Osing.

However, in a similar exercise, 10 of these 13 consultants also ranked Osing as most keren (‘cool’) among all languages spoken in Banyuwangi, while Madurese consistently ranked “least cool”. Therefore, for these 13 consultants, Madurese is considered both kasar and “least cool”—showing, as with Javanese, a correlation between kasar language and negative values in assessments of Madurese. This correlation is made explicit by one consultant after ranking Madurese as “last” on a list from “most alus” to “most kasar”, as shown in (13).

(13) Interview: Beryl (age 23) (English translation)

1 Beryl: … (2.0) saya pikir Madura= I think Madurese .. paling terakhir. is last (i.e. “least alus”). 2 Jonas: .. Mmm. Mmm. 3 Mengapa. Why? 4 Beryl: … Karena= Because… 5 … (1.5) (H) sebenarnya, Actually, 6 Madura dan Osing itu punya= .. ah, Madurese and Osing have 7 .. intonasi yang sama-sama tinggi, equally high intonations. 8 Tetapi? But, 9 (H) karena stereotype Because of the stereotype Madura itu? of Madurese 10 s- orangnya keras=, as keras people, 11 Jonas: .. Aha. Aha. 12 Beryl: Jadi=, So, 13 Itu juga m- mem-- That also… 14 saya pikir mempengaruhi I think influences bahasa juga. language as well.

Beryl’s assessment that stereotypes of Madurese as “keras people” may influence attitudes about Madurese language is consistent with the findings of research on 95

Madurese and of modern sociolinguistic research in general. Despite having a sizable population throughout East Java, particularly along its northern coast and through much of Banyuwangi, are stigmatized, marginalized, and even publicly ridiculed at state-sponsored events (see §2.3). In his grammar of Madurese, Davies

(2010: 6) proposes that part of the reason the language has received little scholarly attention compared to other languages of the region may be due to “prevailing attitudes toward the Madurese people, attitudes which extend to views of the language as well”.

This analysis is quite similar to that of Niedzielski & Preston (1999: 14), who discuss how lay awareness of linguistic features “appears to develop from associated attitudes about speakers, attitudes which make stereotypes out of linguistic elements”.

The correlation between kasar language and negative values described above does not hold for attitudes about Osing, as 10 people considered Osing both kasar and keren

(‘cool’). Unlike attitudes toward the kasar lexical register of Javanese and attitudes toward Madurese, both of which link kasar language to negative stereotypes, there is a counterbalance with regard to attitudes toward Osing. (Agha, 2004: 29–30) describes

“ideological distortion” as one of the possibilities of register organization and change, with every reanalysis or “distortion” of a given register representing “a new system of enactable values”. In the current stage of the expansion of Osing, consultants consider the language both keren (that is, socioculturally valued as being cool) and kasar

(‘unrefined’). These “competing valorizations” (Agha, 2004: 29) represent a type of ideological distortion and are one result of register organization and change.

Further, there is an apparent correlation between attitudes toward the coolness of

Osing and whether people identify as Osing. The 10 people who considered Osing both 96

kasar and keren all identify as Osing in some way (i.e. as suku Osing, wong Osing, orang

Osing, or some combination of these terms) while the three people who considered Osing to be kasar and not keren do not identify as Osing. This is important for two reasons.

First, it shows a connection between language ideology and identity. While this connection is not surprising, it is a link to understanding the fluidity of “identity” and its potential to shift in tandem with register organization and ideological distortion. Only 30 years ago—before the Osing language entered the public sphere—‘Osing’ referred to a marginalized ethnic group and was not valorized by anyone other than a small group of culturalists; Today, Osing is a socioculturally valued register of forms in Banyuwangi, and 14 of 20 consultants—including seven non-ethnic-Osing consultants—are identifying as Osing. This demonstrates that “language ideologies are productively used in the creation and representation of various social and cultural identities” (Kroskrity, 2004:

509) and, to this end, that group identification is “the outcome of culture: […] a cultural effect” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004: 382).

Second, in explaining why Osing is the coolest language, two consultants refer to its status as “the authentic/original language of Banyuwangi,” and two other consultants provide narrative-style, storied accounts in answering why they consider Osing the coolest language (I examine these storied accounts in §4.3). In (14), Isaac explains that

Osing is the coolest language because it’s “Banyuwangi’s own language … authentic/original language”.

97

(14) Interview: Isaac (age 22) (English translation)

1 Isaac: .. Paling keren. Coolest. 2 Jonas: .. Yang dipakai di Banyuwangi. That’s spoken in Banyuwangi. 3 Bahasa yang paling keren. The coolest language. 4 Isaac: .. ^Osing, Osing! 5 Jonas: . @@ Mengapa. (laughter) Why. 6 Isaac: (H) % .. Karena itu= Because it’s… 7 % .. Bu- ah= Um, 8 > bahasanya Banyuwangi sendiri. Banyuwangi’s own language. 9 Jonas: .. % Ya. .. Got it. 10 > Isaac: … Bahasa ^asli. authentic/original language.

Similarly, in (15), Chris answers Bahasa asli Banyuwangi (‘[it’s the] authentic/original language of Banyuwangi’).

(15) Interview: Chris (age 20) (English translation)

1 Chris: … paling keren? … The coolest [language]? 2 Jonas .. Ya. Yes. 3 Chris: … Ya semestinya Bahasa Osing. … Should be Osing. 4 Jonas: … Mengapa. … Why. 5 > Chris: … Bahasa asli Banyuwangi. … [It’s the] authentic/original language of Banyuwangi.

Another consultant switches back and forth between “Osing” and “the language of

Banyuwangi” in answering which language is the coolest, as shown in (16).

(16) Interview: Kirk (age 65) (English translation)

1 Jonas: Bahasa yang paling keren, The coolest language, 2 .. bahasa apa. which language. 3 Kirk: Bahasa yang paling keren ya, The coolest language yeah, 4 > .. Bahasa Banyuwangi. The language of Banyuwangi. 5 Jonas: Bahasa [Banyuwangi]. The language of Banyuwangi. 6 > Kirk: [Banyuwang- Banyuwangi] Osing. Banyuwangi Osing. 7 Jonas: Ya. Got it. 8 > Kirk: Iya [Osing]. Yes Osing. 9 Jonas [Oh Osing] oke. Oh, Osing, OK. 10 > Kirk Bahasa Osing .. Banyuwangi. Osing (language). Banyuwangi. 11 > Osing. Osing. 98

This is perhaps partly due to the fact he was already living in Banyuwangi in the 1980s, prior to the emergence of ‘Osing’, when the language variety was referred to as Dialek

Banyuwangi or Bahasa Banyuwangi in state-sponsored texts (see §2.1.2).

The connection between Osing as the “coolest” language and its association with

Banyuwangi provides another window into understanding the ideological transformation of Osing in recent years. Due to state-sponsored vitalization, reification, and commodification, Osing has become valorized as a marker of authenticity in

Banyuwangi—and Osing identity is often synonymous with Banyuwangi identity. The following section illustrates this through discussion of how consultants negotiate identities in interviews and their various criteria for identifying as Osing.

4.2. Osing identities

In the introduction to this chapter I introduced the terms suku Osing (lit. ‘tribal Osing’ or

‘ethnic Osing’), orang Osing (lit. ‘Osing person’; term of Indonesian origin) and wong

Osing (lit. ‘Osing person’; term of Javanese origin). Questions about these terms and how consultants differentiate them were a central focus of the interviews, although these questions did not appear on my prepared list of interview questions. I asked each consultant to explain the meanings of each term and whether they themselves “are” suku

Osing, orang Osing, and wong Osing. I also asked consultants whether there is any difference in meaning between orang Osing and wong Osing. While the words orang and wong (‘person’) originate from Indonesian and Javanese, respectively, four consultants 99

differentiate the meanings of Orang Osing and Wong Osing, and they do so in different ways (see §4.2.2).

Explanations of the meaning of the term suku Osing are consistent across interviews. For the consultants, suku Osing refers to a stable, essentialist conception of identity and is strictly tied to bloodline. In other words, no non-ethnic-Osing consultant self-identifies as suku Osing, and all consultants express that this term can only refer to a person of ethnic-Osing descent. However, whether a person identifies as wong Osing or orang Osing—or is deemed eligible to identify as wong Osing or orang Osing—is instead dependent on other sociocultural and ideological factors. In fact, all consultants feel a non-ethnic-Osing person may identify as wong Osing or orang Osing provided they meet one or more criteria. These criteria vary among consultants, with four consultants listing “lives in Banyuwangi” as the only necessary criterion for self-identification. Other criteria include “speaks Osing,” “participates in Osing culture,” and “was born in

Banyuwangi”.

Figure 13 shows a breakdown of the 20 consultants into four nested subgroups. Of

20 total consultants, 17 live in an Osing-speaking area (as defined by the consultants themselves). The three consultants who do not live in an Osing-speaking area had limited-to-no knowledge of elements of Osing language and culture, and did not identify as Osing in any way. Of the 17 consultants who live in an Osing-speaking area, 14 self- identify as either wong Osing or orang Osing (or both)—and of these 14, seven identify as suku Osing and seven do not. Of the seven consultants who identify as wong Osing or orang Osing but do not identify as ethnically Osing, five identify as ethnically Javanese, 100

one identifies as ethnically Madurese, and one identifies as campuran (‘a mix’) of

Javanese and Madurese.

Figure 13: Self-identification of consultants

All consultants who identify as suku Osing (‘ethnically Osing’; ‘tribal Osing’) also identify as wong Osing and orang Osing. A logical conclusion is that for the consultants, suku Osing entails wong Osing and orang Osing. In other words, for the consultants, a person who identifies as ethnically Osing (i.e. through bloodline) can be considered

Osing by any definition. However, seven consultants who identify as ethnically Javanese or Madurese also identify as wong Osing and/or orang Osing. I will now discuss how these speakers negotiate these identity categories in interviews. 101

4.2.1. Negotiated identities

In this section I illustrate examples of how some non-ethnic-Osing consultants identify as

Osing. These Osing identities are emergent and negotiated in interviews, demonstrating the fluidity of how people self-identify.

‘Michael’ was born in Banyuwangi to parents of Javanese descent. He grew up speaking Javanese as his first language, and spoke some Osing with friends as a child.

(17) shows his responses to questions about whether he is suku, orang, and wong Osing.

The consultant straightforwardly answers “no” to the question of whether he is suku

Osing, but negotiates his answers regarding whether he is Orang Osing and wong Osing.

Three times in the below excerpt, the consultant says saya menganggap diri saya

[Orang] Osing (‘I consider myself Osing’). According to him, although he is of Javanese ancestry, he was born in Banyuwangi—for him a criterion for identifying as Osing—and although some people may consider him not a speaker of Osing, he states that he does speak Osing. The consultant says the opinion of others is not his concern, yet he addresses this, demonstrating an awareness that “other people” may identify or judge him differently than he identifies himself.

Michael negotiates his Osing identity—first referencing his Javanese ancestry and then explaining why he considers himself Osing. While some consultants differentiate the terms wong Osing and orang Osing in interviews (see §4.2.2), Michael does not. In addition to identifying as wong Osing and orang Osing he also says “saya menganggap diri saya Osing” (‘I consider myself Osing’)—which is the only token of a consultant identifying as (simply) “Osing”. This is relevant because this construction is seldom used 102

across interviews, and is otherwise only seen in contexts of referencing one’s (or one’s parents’) ethnicity (e.g., “Bapak saya Madura” (‘my father is Madurese’)).

(17) Interview: Michael (age 50) (English translation)

1 Jonas: Apa Anda suku Osing. Are you ‘suku Osing’. 2 Michael: Bukan. No. 3 Jonas: Bukan. No. 4 Michael: [Bukan]. No. 5 Jonas: [Apa Anda] [2 Orang Osing 2]. Are you ‘orang Osing’. 6 Michael: [2 (H) by 2]-- By-- 7 .. eh, um, 8 > .. secara biologis? Biologically? 9 > saya orang Jawa. I’m Javanese. 10 Jonas: .. Aha. Aha. 11 Michael: … (2.0) Tetapi, But, 12 > (H) saya menganggap .. eh-- I consider um, 13 > Diri saya orang @ Osing @ myself ‘orang Osing’. 14 [@@@@ (H)] (Laughter) 15 Jonas: [Aha% yayaya]. Aha. OK. 16 (H) Apa Anda wong Osing. Are you ‘wong Osing’. 17 Michael: … Ya. … Yes. 18 Jonas: Ya. Yes. 19 > Michael: Wong Osing. Wong Osing. 20 > … (2.0) saya lahir di sini, I was born here, 21 > Saya menganggap, I consider, 22 > .. diri saya orang Osing. myself ‘orang Osing’. 23 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 24 Michael: … Walaupun-- Even though-- 25 .. eh, um, 26 secara biologis? Biologically? 27 Eh, Um, 28 orangtua saya keduanya orang Jawa? My parents are both Javanese? 29 (H) ehh=, Uh… 30 > dan ada orang lain yang menganggap, And some people consider, 31 (H) eh, um, 32 > saya bukan= eh penutur me not a speaker bahasa Osing of Osing. 33 (H) tapi itu bukan urusan saya. But that’s not my concern. 34 Eh, Um, 35 > .. saya menganggap diri saya .. Osing? I consider myself Osing? 36 > Dan saya berbahasa Osing. And I speak Osing.

103

While I do not propose that Michael is identifying as ethnically Osing, the construction “I consider myself Osing” (c.f. wong Osing or orang Osing) is a strong means of articulating that he identifies as Osing—following his explanation that the opinions of others are not his concern. Hall (2004: 51) claims “that an individual’s self-consciousness never exists in isolation, that it always exists in relationship to an ‘other’ or ‘others’ who serve to validate its existence”. In interviews, consultants directly refer to “others” in the process of negotiating their own identities.

Another consultant, ‘Joyce’, was born in kota Banyuwangi to Javanese parents originally from Madiun, another kabupaten of East Java. She claims Indonesian as her first and primary language, and started speaking Javanese at around the age of “three or four”. Despite claiming to speak Osing 30% of the time in daily conversation, she refers to speakers of Osing as “mereka” (‘them’). She also refers to suku Osing as “mereka” in explaining that she was born to parents who are not Orang asli Osing (‘authentic/original

Osing people’), and is therefore not suku Osing.

In (18) Joyce explains “because I was born in Banyuwangi, I am called wong

Osing”. Although it is not clear whether she “is called” wong Osing in a literal or figurative sense (i.e. whether anyone has actually referred to her as wong Osing), this reference to other people serves to position and validate her Osingness. Later in the excerpt she self-identifies as wong Osing because she “was born in Banyuwangi”. Like

Michael, Joyce refers to her Javanese ancestry and then explains that she identifies as wong Osing because she was born in Banyuwangi. The consultants’ identifications as

(wong) Osing are negotiated in interviews, and the wong Osing identity category emerges through similar patterns of negotiation. 104

(18) Interview: Joyce (age 23) (English translation)

1 Joyce: Kayak, Like, 2 .. saya, me, 3 misal. for example. 4 > (H) .. Saya ini kan? Me myself, right? 5 > .. Anaknya Orang Jawa. The child of . 6 Jonas: Mmhmm. Mmhmm. 7 > Joyce: Tapi karena saya lahir di But because I was born in Banyu^wangi, Banyuwangi, 8 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 9 > Joyce: (H) Saya disebut dengan wong Osing. I’m called wong Osing. 10 Jonas: .. Wong Osing. Wong Osing. 11 Joyce: Ya. Yes. 12 > Orang Osing. Orang Osing. 13 Kayak gitu. Like that. 14 > (H) Meskipun saya bukan= Although I’m not the child of anaknya= Orang asli Osing, an authentic Osing person, 15 > (H) Tapi % . Saya .. wong Osing, But I’m wong Osing, 16 > karena saya .. lahirnya di Because I was born in Banyuwangi. Banyuwangi.

Some consultants differentiate the terms wong Osing and orang Osing, providing different (negotiated) explanations of why they identify as one or the other. I examine two examples of this in the following section.

4.2.2. Differentiating wong Osing and orang Osing

‘Ernest’ was born and raised in Tamansuruh, which neighbors the village of Kemiren. In

(19) he explains how he differentiates the meanings of orang Osing and wong Osing.

Ernest negotiates his definition of orang Osing, first saying it references “most people of

Banyuwangi” and then concluding that it “means orang Banyuwangi”. He follows by saying “but as for wong Osing, that’s more toward Kemiren,” defining Kemiren as the place where people speak “authentic Osing”. Banyuwangians generally consider the locus of Osing to be the village of Kemiren, and Osing speakers outside of Kemiren often 105

express awareness of the less-than-authentic status of their language variety. The same is true for Ernest; Although he was raised in Tamansuruh and considers Osing his primary language, he considers Kemiren Osing to be most authentic.

(19) Interview: Ernest (age 22)—excerpt 1 of 2 (English translation)

1 Ernest: Kalo=-- As for 2 .. Orang Osing? “orang Osing”? 3 .. itu=-- That’s… 4 . . . Hampi=r, almost… 5 . . . Disebutkan-- mentioned [in reference to] 6 .. Sebagian besar Orang Banyuwangi. most people of Banyuwangi. 7 .. Itu=-- That’s 8 .. Orang Osing, “orang Osing,” 9 .. Itu=-- That’s… 10 .. Maksudnya Orang Banyuwangi. It means orang Banyuwangi. 11 .. Tapi kalo= Wong Osing? But as for “wong Osing”? 12 .. Itu= lebih ke Desa Kemiren? That’s more toward Kemiren. 13 Jonas: Mm hm. Mmhm. 14 Ernest: Itu=-- That’s… 15 .. Itu s=ebetulnya-- That’s actually… 16 .. Kalo-- As for 17 .. di mana sih tempatnya orang-- where’s the place of people 18 .. Yang Basa Osing asli. who speak authentic Osing.

Ernest’s negotiated definition of wong Osing frames his answers to my follow-up questions about whether he identifies as orang Osing and wong Osing. As seen in (20),

Ernest considers himself Orang Osing because he lives in Banyuwangi, and Wong Osing because he speaks Osing. The consultant’s means of identification as orang Osing and wong Osing in (20) reflect his earlier negotiated definitions of these terms.

106

(20) Interview: Ernest (age 22)—excerpt 2 of 2 (English translation)

1 Jonas: Apa Anda= Orang Osing. Are you orang Osing? 2 Ernest: .. Saya Orang Osing karena I’m orang Osing because [I] tinggal di Banyuwangi=-- live in Banyuwangi. 3 Jonas: .. Apa Anda Wong Osing. Are you wong Osing? 4 Ernest: Saya Wong Osing karena=-- I’m wong Osing because 5 Saya bahasanya= Bahasa Osing. I speak Osing.

While Ernest associates orang Osing with “living in Banyuwangi” and wong

Osing with “speaking Osing,” ‘Gordon’ instead associates wong Osing with “having been born in Banyuwangi”, as shown in (21). Earlier in the interview, I had asked Gordon whether orang Osing and wong Osing had the same or different meanings, and he answered that he felt they were the same. He returns to this question in (21), following his explanation of the meaning of wong Osing. While the consultant had earlier expressed that orang Osing and wong Osing have the same meaning, he reconsiders this after negotiating the meaning of wong Osing—and identifying as such. He says, “as for wong

Osing, born in Banyuwangi, maybe the ancestors aren’t orang Banyuwangi … like me, wong Osing”. After identifying as wong Osing the consultant pauses, apologizes, and returns to the issue of whether orang Osing and wong Osing indeed have the same meaning. It seems likely that his use of the phrase orang Banyuwangi influenced this rethinking of his earlier explanation. Following my question about whether Gordon is wong Osing, he answers “yes” with some certainty. His answer to whether he is orang

Osing is less certain, prompting him to explain that he “also” (i.e. like me, the interviewer) doesn’t fully understand whether there is a difference between the meanings of orang and wong in this context.

107

(21) Interview: Gordon (age 22) (English translation)

9 Gordon: Kalau Wong Osing, As for wong Osing, 10 .. Lahir di Banyuwangi, Born in Banyuwangi, 11 .. Mungkin leluhurnya bukan Maybe the ancestors aren’t Orang Banyuwangi. orang Banyuwangi. 12 Jonas: Mmhm. Mmhm. 13 Gordon: Mungkin, Maybe, 14 .. Pengertian saya, my understanding, 15 .. Seperti itu. [it’s] like that. 16 .. Seperti saya, Like me, 17 .. Wong Osing. wong Osing. 18 Jonas: Mmhm. Mmhm. 19 Gordon: .. Ehh, Ehh, 20 .. Eh maaf. Uh, sorry. 21 .. Orang Osing Wong Osing, Orang Osing / wong Osing, 22 .. Orang Osing dan Wong Osing orang Osing and wong Osing ya tadi ya? yeah from earlier yeah? 23 Jonas: Mmhm. Mmhm. 24 Gordon: . . . (5.0) Ehh mungkin sama sih. … (5.0) Ehh, maybe the same. 25 Jonas: . . . (H) Apa Anda Wong Osing? Are you wong Osing? 26 Gordon: . . . Ya, Yes. 27 .. Bisa dikatakan ya. You can say that, yes. 28 Jonas: Ya. OK. 29 .. Apa Anda Orang Osing? Are you orang Osing? 30 Gordon: . . . Ehh, Ehh, 31 .. Bisa iya. Could be, yes. 32 Jonas: @@@ (Laughter) 33 Gordon: .. S=aya masih kurang, I too still don’t fully 34 .. Memahami juga, understand, 35 .. Orang sama Wong itu-- “orang” and “wong”-- 36 Jonas: Ya. Yeah. 37 Gordon: Apa= .. Berbeda Whether they’re different apa nggak. or not.

Regardless of whether a given consultant differentiates wong Osing from orang Osing, one or both of these terms is associated with a Banyuwangi identity. The emergent meanings of these negotiated identity labels are relatively recent phenomena and have co- occurred with the state-sponsored vitalization, reification, and commodification of Osing. 108

The following section examines some storied responses from consultants, reflecting their awareness (and sometimes their opinions) of this recent shift in prestige.

4.3. Storied accounts

Benwell & Stokoe (2006: 141) differentiate narrative interviews from standard social science research interviews, which are—unlike narrative interviews—“not designed to elicit narrative-type answers yet generate storied answers”. The interviews I conducted were much like the latter in that although they were not narrative interviews, consultants at times provided storied answers to questions. I will focus here on some of these storied answers. The interview excerpts in this section provide personal accounts of the expansion of Osing and its shift in prestige. §4.3.1 examines storied accounts from two consultants who reflect on the past and present status of Osing; §4.3.2 examines perspectives from two consultants who discuss the present-day, widespread “Osing- ization” of Banyuwangi.

4.3.1. Osing, past and present

‘Albert’ is a 22-year-old L1 speaker of Osing and lifelong resident of Kemiren. In responding to my question about which of Banyuwangi’s languages are “coolest” and

“least cool” he provides an account of how he was ashamed to use Osing in elementary school because it was judged as uncool. Given his age, Albert presumably attended elementary school from approximately 2000 to 2006. As discussed in §3.2 this was the era during which Osing was first commodified (under then-mayor Samsul Hadi). Albert’s account of being ashamed to speak Osing during these years suggests the (now) 109

widespread popularization of Osing was only just beginning, and had not yet influenced his speech community.

(22) Interview: Albert (age 22)—excerpt 1 of 2 (English translation)

1 Albert: Soalnya? The thing is, 2 > .. Waktu saya masih when I was still in SMP, junior high school, 3 Jonas: Ya. Yeah. 4 > Albert: Masih SD, still in elementary school, 5 > .. Saya sendiri pun malu I myself was ashamed pakai Bahasa Osing. to use (speak) Osing. 6 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 7 Albert: Ya. Yeah. 8 Jonas: .. Waktu= masih When you were still in SD, elementary school. 9 Albert: Masih SD. Still in elementary school. 10 > … beda lagi kalau sekarang, It’s different now. 11 Jonas: … (H) maaf, … Pardon me, 12 Ada lagi? is there more [shame] 13 Sekarang? now? 14 .. Atau tidak sekarang, Or not [ashamed] now. 15 Albert: .. Tidak. Not. 16 Jonas: Tidak. Not. 17 Albert: Tidak. Not. 18 Jonas: (H) Mengapa … malu, Why were you ashamed 19 .. berbahasa Osing to speak Osing while in waktu masih .. SD. elementary school? 20 Albert: … Ada beberapa kelompok? There were a few groups… 21 .. Bukan-- Not-- 22 Bukan beberapa kelompok sih, Not a few groups 23 Tapi, but, 24 > Hampir semua, almost all 25 > MenJudge, judged 26 > .. Bahasa Osing itu, Osing 27 > Tidak keren. [as] not cool.

His feelings of shame shifted sometime in the 2000s, when the popularity of Osing began to boom. Today, he is now proud of the language and considers Osing the coolest and most popular of the languages spoken in Banyuwangi. Following up on his statement that 110

he was no longer ashamed to use Osing, I asked him about the present day and why he was no longer ashamed.

(23) Interview: Albert (age 22)—excerpt 2 of 2 (English translation)

1 Albert: Kalau sekarang, As for now, 2 Sudah, [I’m] already 3 Tidak malu, not ashamed. 4 Jonas: Oke, OK. 5 > Albert: Mungkin dulu, Maybe formerly, 6 > .. Bahasa Osing kurang populer juga. Osing was unpopular, too. 7 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 8 > Albert: Kalau sekarang memang sudah As for now, it’s really di=boomingkan? booming. 9 > Maksudnya sudah dikenalkan, I mean it’s already familiarized. 10 > (H) Saya juga s- .. mulai sadar? I also began to become aware, 11 Kenap-- Wh-- 12 > .. Pakai Bahasa Osing ini lho [To] use this Osing language, bahasa kita sendiri gitu. our own language. 13 Jonas: Aha, Aha. 14 > Albert: .. Kalau dulu kan belum sadar. In the past I wasn’t aware.

Albert explains that while Osing was perhaps “also” unpopular in the past (i.e. in addition to being judged as uncool), it is now “booming”22 and familiarized in Banyuwangi. He goes on to explain that he began to become conscious of the importance of using “our own (Osing) language”. His account reflects the vitalization and the commodification of

Osing in recent years and shows the micro-level impact of these processes on one speaker.

22 The English word “boom” is familiar in Banyuwangi as the name of its central beach, Pantai Boom (‘Boom Beach’). The word also appears in the title of a state-produced Osing-language music DVD entitled Boom Banyuwangi. 111

Another consultant, ‘Rafael’, was born in Wongsorejo (Banyuwangi’s northernmost kecamatan) to parents of Madurese and Javanese descent. He considers

Madurese his first language, and began speaking Javanese in elementary school. He attended high school in the city area of Banyuwangi in the early 1990s—prior to the beginning of Osing language instruction in schools.

In answering which of the languages spoken in Banyuwangi is the coolest, Rafael recounts his reentry to Banyuwangi after living in Surabaya for nearly thirteen years.

Rafael moved to Surabaya sometime in the mid-90s, prior to the expansion of Osing language and culture; Upon his return to Banyuwangi in 2009 he noticed a change in his perception of Osing, and realized he was proud of the language. In the consultant’s view, the unity and “brotherhood” of the Osing community had broadened and solidified while he was in Surabaya. Rafael’s discussion of this change reflects his attitudes toward Osing before and after the successful, state-sponsored promotion of the language. Further, it suggests the expansion of Osing’s popularity had made a noticeable impact by the year

2009. Another interesting feature of this interview is Rafael’s discussion of “the Osing community” and his inclusion in this community (“when we’re outside Banyuwangi”). In various cities throughout the island of Java and elsewhere in Indonesia there exist local meet-up groups for Banyuwangians. These are commonly named “Ikawangi”, short for

Ikatan Keluarga Banyuwangi (‘Banyuwangi family ties’). In (24) and elsewhere in the interview, Rafael positions himself as “different” in that he is of Madurese and Javanese ancestry, and he does not identify as suku Osing, wong Osing, or orang Osing during the interview. However, he participates in Ikawangi meet-up sessions when traveling, and as a Banyuwangian, considers himself part of this community. 112

(24) Interview: Rafael (age 37) (English translation)

1 Jonas: Yang paling keren .. menurut Anda. The coolest, in your opinion. 2 Rafael: (TSK) Yang paling keren. The coolest. 3 Kalo selama saya s- uh .. As for while I… uh, 4 Apa. Huh. 5 Saya l- begini. I – it’s like this. 6 Saya flashback sedikit aja. I just flashbacked a bit. 7 Jonas: Ya. OK. 8 Rafael: Saya lulus SMA dulu? I graduated high school first? 9 Jonas: Ya. Yeah. 10 Rafael: Tinggal di Surabaya Lived in Surabaya .. hampir tiga belas tahun. Almost 13 years. 11 Jonas: Phew. Phew! 12 Rafael: Ya. Yes. 13 Karena di sana bekerja, Because there I worked, 14 Dan kuliah juga’. and went to college too. 15 Jonas: Ya .. oke. Yes. OK. 16 Rafael: Ah .. kemudian kembali lagi ke= Then I returned again to Banyuwangi di dua ribu= sembilan. Banyuwangi in 2009. 17 Ah .. mulai dari sana, Ah… starting from then, 18 Mulai menyukai Bahasa Osing gitu. I started liking Osing. 19 Dan .. menurut saya Bahasa Osing, And, in my opinion, Osing, 20 Saya bangga dengan Bahasa Osing. I’m proud of Osing. 21 Meskipun saya keturunan Even though my ancestry is Madura dan Jawa. Madurese and Javanese. 22 Jonas: Iya. Yeah. 23 Rafael: Iya. Yeah. 24 Different. Different. 25 . . . Apalagi= gini. Moreover it’s like this. 26 Uh .. masyarakat Osing, Uh, the Osing community, 27 Atau masyarakat ^Osing yang uh or the Osing community that’s .. menyebar di Indonesia, spread across Indonesia, 28 Atau di luar negeri, Or in other countries, 29 Komunitasnya The community, .. persaudaraannya the brotherhood lebih kentel. is thicker. 30 Kalo’ kita ada di luar. When we’re outside [Banyuwangi]. 31 Gitu. Like that. 32 Persatuannya lebih .. lebi=h apa ya. The unity is more… 33 Lebih solid. More solid. 34 Gitu. Like that.

113

Rafael’s reference to these Ikawangi groups as the expanded “Osing community” shows one of the ways in which Rafael associates Banyuwanginess with Osingness—and how he himself associates with the Osing community.

The following section examines storied accounts of a different nature, wherein consultants share somewhat critical perspectives on the expansion of Osing.

4.3.2. The Osing-ization of Banyuwangi

‘Oscar’ is a 54-year-old lifelong resident of Kemiren. He considers himself ethnically

Osing and names Osing his primary language. During our interview, I asked whether there are speakers of Osing who are not Orang Osing. After saying banyak ‘many’, the consultant described what he perceives as a difficulty in differentiating between Orang

Osing and non Osing.

(25) Interview: Oscar (age 54)—excerpt 1 of 2 (English translation)

1 Jonas Apa ada orang, Are there people, 2 Bukan orang Osing, [who are] not orang Osing, 3 Yang pakai .. Bahasa Osing. who use (speak) Osing. 4 Oscar: Banyak. Lots. 5 Jonas: Banyak ya. Lots, yeah? 6 Oscar: Banyak, Lots. 7 Malahan .. kebalikannya juga banyak. Even the opposite, also lots. 8 Jonas: Ya. OK. 9 Oscar: Mangkanya yang susah sekarang ini, It’s become difficult now, 10 Kalau untuk membedakan orang ya. to differentiate people yeah. 11 Membedakan orang Differentiating mana orang Osing mana non-Osing. who’s Osing and who’s not. 12 Misale, For example, 13 Ini susah. This is difficult. 14 .. karena banyak Because there are many Orang Osing, orang Osing 15 yang mengasingkan diri, who foreign-ize themselves, 16 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 17 Oscar: Juga banyak orang asing, Also many foreign people yang mengOsingkan diri. who Osing-ize themselves. 114

Earlier in the interview, Oscar clarifies that in the context of Osing language and culture, he uses Orang Asing (‘foreigners’) in reference not only to people from outside

Indonesia, but also people from elsewhere in Indonesia—that is, outside Banyuwangi.

Here the consultant does not specify who exactly—other than orang Osing—speaks

Osing. Instead, he explains that many non-Osing people “mengOsingkan diri” (‘Osing- ize themselves’). Oscar continues with his explanation of the difficulty in “defining” and

“detecting” Orang Osing from non Osing:

(26) Interview: Oscar (age 54)—excerpt 2 of 2 (English translation)

1 Oscar: Jadi, So, 2 Jadi itu, so it’s 3 Susah kalau kita untuk .. difficult for us to mendefiniskan .. apa, define … how do I say, 4 Mendeteksi apa ini detect whether [a person is] Orang Osing apa ndak. orang Osing or not. 5 Jonas: Ya. Yeah. 6 Oscar: Ka- ndak bisa kalau dari segi bahasa. You can’t through language. 7 Jonas: Nggak bisa. You can’t. 8 Oscar: Karena .. jangankan orang, Because never mind people… 9 Lingkungan pun juga kadang-kadang, neighborhood also sometimes 10 Ah mempengaruhi. influences. 11 Banyak orang, There are many people— 12 Asing, foreign [to Banyuwangi]— 13 Yang hidup who live di lingkungan orang Osing. in Osing areas. 14 Ah ini yang These are who mengOsingkan diri. Osing-ize themselves. 15 Jonas: Aha. Aha. 16 Oscar: Juga begitu kebalikannya. As well as the reverse. 17 Ada orang Osing yang There are orang Osing who hidup di tengah-tengah non Osing, live among non-Osing.

While Oscar’s comments in (25) and (26) might be interpreted out of context as a favorable view of what he calls “Osingization”, his perspective is in fact the opposite. At 115

the end of our interview23, Oscar lamented the “contamination” of Osing language and culture in Banyuwangi, hailing Kemiren as the only source for “authentic” Osing data.

With this in mind, Oscar’s comments about “Osingization” should be viewed through the lens of what Bucholtz & Hall (2005: 602) refer to as denaturalization, or the calling of attention to “the ways in which identity is crafted, fragmented, problematic, or false”. For

Oscar, people who “Osingize themselves” are “violating [his] ideological expectations”

(Bucholtz & Hall 2005: 602) of who is and is not Osing.

The final example in this section is an excerpt from an interview with ‘Nadine’, a lifelong resident of Tamansuruh (which neighbors Kemiren) and an L1 Osing speaker. I was in the process of asking the meanings of two phrases she had used earlier—“Osing asli” and “suku Osing”—when she provided some critical commentary about the present- day status of Osing:

(27) Interview: Nadine (age 41) (English translation)

1 Jonas: Kalau Osing asli As for [the terms] “Osing dan ^suku Osing. asli” and “suku Osing”. 2 Nadine: … (H) Ya, Yeah, 3 Cuma itu kan= Those are just incorporated .. di= masukkan aset … Indonesia, as assets for Indonesia. 4 Jadi, So… 5 (H) .. adat Osing itu ^sama, The same with “adat Osing”. 6 s- ini ^sama, It’s [all] the same… 7 Osing semua. Everything’s “Osing”.

Nadine’s view of Osing identity labels having been “incorporated as assets for Indonesia” demonstrates an awareness of what Bucholtz & Hall (2005: 603) refer to as

23 While I was packing up, and regrettably, after I had switched off the audio recorder. 116

authorization, or “the affirmation or imposition of an identity through structures of institutionalized power and ideology”. For Nadine, the widespread adoption and use of terms such as “Osing asli” and “suku Osing” in present-day Banyuwangi are a result of the state-sponsored reification of elements of Osing language and culture. Like all consultants, Nadine had (earlier in the interview) associated suku Osing with notions of ethnic identity. In saying “Everything’s Osing” in (27) she is remarking on the

Osingization of Banyuwangi and of its people, and following this excerpt she takes a different stance on this identity label: For her, anyone in Banyuwangi can identify as suku

Osing, orang Osing, and wong Osing.

4.4. Conclusion

In this chapter I have shown how the recent recontextualization of Osing has influenced—and been influenced by—the expansion of elements of Osing language and culture in Banyuwangi. Consultants negotiate “identities” during interviews based on ideologies and sociocultural factors, reflecting the reinterpretation of “Osing” as an authentic, regional identity label. While there is a correlation between kasar language and negative values in assessments of Madurese, a region-wide ideological shift has resulted in competing valorizations in assessments of Osing, which is considered both kasar and cool.

The criteria for identifying as Osing have broadened to include people living in

Banyuwangi, regardless of ancestry. The emergent meanings of wong Osing and orang

Osing have co-occurred with the state-sponsored vitalization, reification, and commodification of Osing, and Osingness (or identification as Osing) is often associated 117

with Banyuwanginess. Consultants’ storied accounts of this transformation align with the timeline of the processes of commodification discussed in Chapter 3, and the interview data provide micro-level views of this recent reinterpretation of linguistic and social registers of Osing. The broad cultural theme of the popularity of Osing in Banyuwangi is reflected in how consultants make sense of themselves and others, as the interview data show.

118

Chapter 5

Conclusion

This dissertation has discussed the history of Osing in the public sphere over the past four decades, with the initial “discourse of loss” among language activists in Banyuwangi having begun in the 1970s. Subsequent vitalization efforts led to Osing language instruction in schools, which began in the late 1990s, and the commodification and reification of Osing over the past 20 years has transformed ideologies about the language and its speakers. The discourse about Osing is no longer a discourse of loss, but rather a discourse of pride—and this is reflected in how consultants make sense of themselves in interviews. I have shown how Osing has evolved from a low-prestige variety to the regional language of Banyuwangi. I have discussed the effects of the commodification of

Osing on negotiated identities, how register reinterpretations have resulted in competing valorizations of the language, and how idealized versions of Osing are represented in public performance data. Non-ethnic-Osing Banyuwangians are speaking Osing, adopting

Osing cultural practices, and—crucially—identifying as Osing. Taylor (2003: 193) writes that “[a] positioning as someone who is of a place (emphasis original) can connect a speaker to the multiple established meanings and identities of that place. This can work as a claim to an identity as, for example, the kind of person who belongs there”. As 119

consultants equate Osingness with Banyuwanginess, they negotiate their own means of identifying as wong Osing and orang Osing. These fluid, emergent notions of (Osing identity reflect a new local discourse of Osing pride.

Returning to my discussion of language planning, the following section discusses some of the current issues in Banyuwangi and their applied and theoretical implications.

5.1. Language planning: Implications

This research comes at a pivotal time for Banyuwangi, Osing language activists, and

Osing speakers themselves. In 2014, undermining the national government's 2007 statute that Indonesia's “regional languages” were to be preserved and developed by regional governments (Widodo, 2007), the (then) governor of the East Java issued a provincial regulation naming only Javanese and Madurese as the regional languages of East Java

(Soekarwo, 2014). This regulation has had direct policy implications in Banyuwangi

Regency, which not only strives to promote and popularize Osing but also teaches Osing in public and private schools across all 25 of its districts. With no recognition as a regional language by the provincial government of East Java, there is no provision for funding educational resources for Osing in Banyuwangi, and curricular items such as

Osing language textbooks are in desperate need of an update (Jusuf, 2018). A new governor was elected in September 2018 and inaugurated in February 2019; It remains to be seen whether she will formally recognize Osing as one of East Java's regional languages, although she has already publicly stated she will (Zahro, 2018). If the 2007 statute requiring promotion, preservation, and instruction of regional languages is to be upheld, the provincial government must recognize all (and not just two) of the regional 120

languages in East Java. Similarly, it remains to be seen whether the mayor of

Banyuwangi will recognize Madurese as one of its regional languages. Whether and how these provincial and local governments might come to a compromise will be a focus of attention in the coming months.

Fishman (2004: 79) defines “language planning” as “the authoritative societal assignment of scarce resources to language,” going on to say that status planning has received considerably more attention than corpus planning in the literature due to its interest to social scientists. Status planning has indeed been a major focus of my research, as well. Given the newly widespread popularity of Osing and the ideological shift that has taken place in Banyuwangi, the state-sponsored efforts to promote Osing have certainly—already—succeeded. The implementation of Osing language instruction “in all

25 districts” of Banyuwangi has become a regular talking point for Banyuwangi’s mayor at public events as a reflection of this success. While this talking point may appear to reflect the success of corpus planning, it is in reality a measure of status-planning efforts:

The goal of teaching Osing “in all 25 districts” is based more on the discourse of success than on actual (pedagogical) outcomes.

Taylor-Leech (2008: 174) discusses language planning as a “niched activity” involving “careful planning, focusing of expertise and allocation of resources,” saying that “in the absence of such planning, ad hoc and established power relationships will continue to dominate social discourse and language politics”. This analysis is reflected in

Banyuwangi, as Osing language instruction is severely under-funded throughout the regency, with scant resources devoted to teacher training and curricular materials.

Further—and partly due to lack of resources, classroom instruction is seemingly more 121

focused on the valorization of Osing than with “communicative competence” (Hymes,

1966). For example, an average chapter in a text for Junior High School (Yanto, 2003a;

Yanto, 2003b) consists of a 500- to 700-word passage in Osing about a particular element of Osing culture, followed by seven to ten vocabulary items, practice sentences, and writing exercises. While it is possible the instructors are covering elements of grammar and the many undefined lexical items in these passages, this is not evident from the texts alone. Further, I have been informed by L1 Osing-speaking acquaintances that their instructors themselves were not speakers of Osing, and that the Osing-speaking students were asked to interpret portions of the texts.

It is indeed the social discourse of Osing pride that has driven the ideological shift in Banyuwangi and the emergent, negotiated identities of consultants. Given this social discourse and the continued emphasis on the valorization of Osing by Banyuwangi government, it seems likely the language will continue its trajectory of vitality in the region. In Banyuwangi, Osing has strong “institutional support”—a term used by Giles,

Bourhis, & Taylor (1977: 309) to define one of three types of “structural variables most likely to influence the vitality of ethnolinguistic groups”. “Status” is another type of structural variable defined by the authors and includes economic, social, sociohistorical, and language status factors.

122

Figure 14: “Variables affecting ethnolinguistic vitality” (Giles et al., 1977: 309)

As I have shown, the social status of Osing is thriving, and its sociohistorical status is one of a newly valorized, socially-constructed account of Osing as the “most authentic,”

“original” language variety in Banyuwangi. The language status of Osing is particularly interesting, as speakers’ negotiated means of identifying as Osing and as speakers of

Osing transcend ethnolinguistic boundaries. In her discussion of Welsh language instruction in schools and a “new” Welsh ethnolinguistic identity, Selleck (2018: 55–58) describes how some students—L2 learners of Welsh—identify as “Welsh” but “not fully

Welsh”. Similar processes of negotiation are seen among the data collected in

Banyuwangi. The key difference between the negotiated Welsh identities described in

Selleck (2018) and the negotiated Osing identities of Banyuwangians is that L2 Welsh speakers can lay claim to a Welsh identity by virtue of living in Wales. Osing, on the other hand, is not a toponym of or within the region. Consultants negotiate Osing 123

identities by virtue of living in Banyuwangi, and they identify as speakers of Osing— which has come to be known as “the original/authentic language of Banyuwangi”. This recent expansion of a subnational ethnolinguistic identity group is reflective of the current vitality of Osing and is to my knowledge unparalleled. Further, this expansion is happening in the present day, and therefore analyzable synchronically.

It should be noted that although consultants identify as speakers of Osing, future research is necessary to determine whether these consultants do in fact speak [a variety of] Osing or instead something more appropriately labeled as a variety of Javanese. Ehala

(2010: 365) distinguishes (ethnolinguistic) “vitality” from “sustainability,” the former defined as “the ability of a community to act as a collective entity” and the latter as “the ability to continue existing as a group”. He argues that sustainability is not guaranteed by vitality, and that “no conclusions can be drawn from the data of vitality in relation to the sustainability of [a] group”. In the case of Osing in Banyuwangi there is strong ethnolinguistic vitality based on its status and institutional support. However, if the newly popularized variety of Osing displaces the variety spoken by L1 speakers in areas such as

Kemiren, the sustainability of the Osing language may be shown to be not as strong. The commodification of elements of Osing language and culture and the widescale adoption of Osing identity labels may have no relation to the sustainability of the language itself, and mainstream, socially-constructed ideologies about Osingness may even have an erosive effect on the number of L1 Osing speakers in years to come. 124

5.2. Future research

Osing has recently emerged as a language of significant interest for scholars across disciplines due in large part to efforts of the local government to vitalize the language and culture of its autochthonous people. Despite this, there remains no published empirical research on Osing language-in-use. As this dissertation provides first evidence-based analysis of varieties of Osing, there is much room for (much-needed) further exploration, and such research would fill a major gap in the literature on the languages of Indonesia and advance knowledge of the languages of Java. Further, it would benefit the

Banyuwangi community as it aims to increase awareness of this under-documented language. My specific research goals include further documenting and describing the variety of Osing spoken in the village of Kemiren, which is considered by

Banyuwangians to be the variety most divergent from Javanese. I aim to place Kemiren

Osing in the landscape of documented language varieties of Indonesia and answer the following research questions in greater detail:

• What are the structural (e.g., phonological, morphosyntactic,

morphophonological) features of Kemiren Osing?

• What does analysis of language-in-use reveal in terms of specific discourse

features of the language such as phrasal alternation and symmetrical voice?

• To what degree does Kemiren Osing diverge from (and relate to) varieties of

Javanese and other languages of western Indonesia?

125

Osingness has become synonymous with Banyuwanginess, and Banyuwangians at large are identifying as Osing—and as speakers of Osing. Status planning in Banyuwangi has created the conditions for register reorganization and expansion, and a public perception of Osing which does not match the naturalistic conversation data found in Osing- speaking households. Further, as discussed earlier in this thesis, researchers have often referred to Osing as a singular—albeit “divergent” or “peripheral”—variety of Javanese.

Further research may reveal that emergent varieties of (speaker-defined) “Osing” have indeed expanded the Osing dialect continuum to include varieties which may be indistinguishable from varieties of Javanese. If Osing is understood as a continuum of more and less mutually intelligible varieties, the door is opened to more empirical research on these varieties and Osing language-in-use.

Lastly, the commodification of Osing language and culture is proving to be a successful and (perhaps) sustainable method for increasing tourism to Banyuwangi, prompting the question of whether local governments in other parts of Indonesia will attempt to adopt this model. Such conditions may provide excellent settings for longitudinal research on language and identity.

126

References

Adelaar, K. A. (1996). Chinese: First and Contact languages (Indonesia, Malaysia). In

Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the

Americas. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Adisasmito-Smith, N. (2004). Phonetic and Phonological Influences of Javanese on

Indonesian (Dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca.

Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication, 23(3–4),

231–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00012-0

Agha, A. (2004). Registers of language. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic

Anthropology (pp. 23–45). Malden, : Blackwell Publishing.

Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618284

Ali, H. (2006a). Kamus Bahasa Daerah Using-Indonesia. Banyuwangi: Dewan Kesenian

Blambangan (DKB) Banyuwangi.

Ali, H. (2006b). Pedoman Umum Ejaan Bahasa Using (Cara Menulis dan Membaca

Bahasa Using). Banyuwangi: Dewan Kesenian Blambangan (DKB) Banyuwangi.

Ali, H. (2006c). Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Using. Banyuwangi: Pemerintah Kabupaten

Banyuwangi.

Anas, A. A. (2017, June 9). Bandara Blimbingsari. Retrieved June 9, 2017, from

azwaranas.a3 website: instagram.com

Androutsopoulos, J. (2000). Non-standard spellings in media texts: the case of German

fanzines. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(4), 514–533. 127

Arps, B. (1992a). Tembang in two traditions: performance and interpretation of Javanese

literature. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London.

Arps, B. (1992b). Yusup, Sritanjung, and Fragrant Water: The Adoption of a Popular

Islamic Poem in Banyuwangi, East Java. In V.J.H. Houben, H.M.J. Maier, & W.

van der Molen (Eds.), Looking in Odd Mirrors: The Java Sea (pp. 112–145).

Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië,

Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden.

Arps, B. (2004). Conversation as a curiosity: Performing autochthonous talk in the media

of Banyuwangi (Java, Indonesia). Leiden University.

Arps, B. (2009). Osing Kids and the banners of Blambangan: Ethnolinguistic identity and

the regional past as ambient themes in an East Javanese town. Wacana, Journal of

the Humanities of Indonesia, 11(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.17510/wjhi.v11i1.142

Arps, B. (2010). Terwujudnya Bahasa Using di Banyuwangi dan Peranan Media

Elektronik di Dalamnya (Selayang Pandang, 1970-2009). In Mikihiro Moriyama

& Manneke Budiman (Eds.), Geliat Bahasa Selaras Zaman: Perubahan Bahasa-

Bahasa di Indonesia Pasca-Orde Baru (pp. 225–248). Tokyo: Research Institute

for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign

Studies.

Arps, B. (2011). The Lettuce Song and Its Trajectory: The Vagaries of a Pop Song in

Three Eras. Presented at the Seminar Voice of the Archipelago, FKI VII,

Surakarta.

Astro, M. M. (2017). Banyuwangi awarded as best festival city in Indonesia. Retrieved

February 8, 2018, from Antara News website: 128

https://en.antaranews.com/news/109259/banyuwangi-awarded-as-best-festival-

city-in-indonesia

Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan

Kebudayaan. (2018a). Bahasa dan Peta Bahasa di Indonesia. Retrieved February

8, 2018, from Bahasa dan Peta Bahasa di Indonesia website:

http://118.98.223.79/petabahasa/databahasa.php

Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan

Kebudayaan. (2018b). Peta Bahasa. Retrieved July 31, 2018, from Bahasa dan

Peta Bahasa di Indonesia website: http://118.98.223.79/petabahasa/

Badan Pusat Statistik. (2013). Indonesia - Sensus Penduduk 2000. Retrieved August 8,

2018, from Badan Pusat Statistik website:

https://microdata.bps.go.id/mikrodata/index.php/catalog/82/related_materials

Badan Pusat Statistik Kabupaten Banyuwangi. (2011). Kewarganegaraan, Suku Bangsa,

Agama, dan Bahasa Sehari-Hari Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk

2010. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from https://banyuwangikab.bps.go.id/

Beatty, A. (2003). Varieties of Javanese Religion: An Anthropological Account. In

Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology: Vol. 111. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge

University Press. 129

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice,

Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Bowern, C. (2015). Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “Identity.” Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47.

Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic

approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407

Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, K. (2004). Language and Identity. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A

Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 369–394). Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishing.

Budiono, S. (2015). Variasi Bahasa di Kabupaten Banyuwangi: Penelitian Dialektologi

(Skripsi). Universitas Indonesia, Depok.

Clynes, A. (1994). Javanese. In Darrell T. Tyron (Ed.), Comparative Austronesian

Dictionary: An Introduction to Austronesian Studies, Part 1: Fascicle 1 (pp. 469–

484). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Cobarrubias, J. (1983). Ethical Issues in Status Planning. In J. Cobarrubias & J. A.

Fishman (Eds.), Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives (pp.

41–85). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Conners, T. J. (2008). Tengger Javanese (Dissertation). Yale University, New Haven.

Davies, W. D. (2010). A grammar of Madurese. In Mouton Grammar Library: Vol. 50.

Berlin ; New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 130

Du Bois, J. W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, & Danae Paolino. (1993).

Outline of discourse transcription. In Jane A. Edwards & Martin D. Lampert

(Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89).

Retrieved from https://lg411.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/duboisdiscoursetrs.pdf

Dudas, K. M. (1976). The Phonology and Morphology of Modern Javanese

(Dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign,

IL.

Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4),

453–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x

Ehala, M. (2010). Refining the notion of ethnolinguistic vitality. International Journal of

Multilingualism, 7(4), 363–378.

Englebretson, R. (2003). Searching for structure: the problem of complementation in

colloquial Indonesian conversation. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Englebretson, R. (2014). Indonesian. In C. Genetti (Ed.), How Languages Work (1st ed.,

pp. 551–566). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Errington, J. J. (1988). Structure and style in Javanese: a semiotic view of linguistic

etiquette. In University of Pennsylvania Press Conduct and Communication

Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Errington, J. J. (1998). Shifting languages: interaction and identity in Javanese Indonesia.

In Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language: Vol. no. 19.

Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fauziah, L. (2016, August). Patung Gandrung. National Geographic Traveler (Indonesia

Edition), 8(08), 114. 131

Fishman, J. A. (1978). The Indonesian language planning experience: what does it teach

us? In S. Udin (Ed.), Spectrum: Essays presented to Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana on

his seventieth birthday (pp. 333–339). Jakarta: Dian Rakyat.

Fishman, J. A. (2004). Ethnicity and supra-ethnicity in corpus planning: the hidden status

agenda in corpus planning. Nations and Nationalism, 10(1–2), 79–94.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00156.x

Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a Theory of Language in

Ethnic Group Relations. In Howard Giles (Ed.), Language, Ethnicity and

Intergroup Relations (pp. 307–348). London ; New York: Academic Press.

Grimes, B. F. (Ed.). (1988). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (11th ed.). Dallas, TX:

Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc.

Hall, D. E. (2004). Subjectivity. New York: Routledge.

Hayward, K. (1999). Lexical phonology and the Javanese vowel system. SOAS Working

Papers in Linguistics, 9, 191–225.

Herusantosa, S. (1987). Bahasa Using di Kabupaten Banyuwangi (Dissertation).

Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.

Hymes, D. H. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In W. Bright (Ed.),

Sociolinguistics (pp. 114–158). The Hague: Mouton.

Jusuf, A. (2014). Using atau Oseng? Retrieved from

http://antariksawanjusuf.blogspot.com/2014/09/using-atau-oseng.html

Jusuf, A. (2015a). Menulis Bahasa Using yang benar. Retrieved from

http://antariksawanjusuf.blogspot.com/2015/08/menulis-bahasa-using-yang-

benar.html 132

Jusuf, A. (2015b). Surat Terbuka untuk Panitia Seminar Bahasa “Oseng.” Retrieved from

http://antariksawanjusuf.blogspot.com/2015/11/

Jusuf, A. (2018, August 10). Balambangan: Kata-kata Menuju Kematian: Nasib Bahasa

Using. Retrieved August 11, 2018, from Balambangan website:

http://antariksawanjusuf.blogspot.com/2018/08/kata-kata-menuju-kematian-nasib-

bahasa.html

Kimball, S., & Peter Mattis. (2012). GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program)

(Version 2.8). Retrieved from gimp.org

Kloss, H. (1967). “Abstand Languages” and “Ausbau Languages.” Anthropological

Linguistics, 9(7), 29–41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029461

Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language Ideologies. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to

Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 496–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Lestari, R. A. Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Banyuwangi Nomor 5 Tahun 2007 Tentang

Pembelajaran Bahasa Daerah Pada Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar. , (2007).

McDonnell, B. (2016). Symmetrical voice constructions in Besemah: A usage-based

approach (Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara). Retrieved from

https://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/downloads/h128nf06h

Moeljono, M., Koentjahjo, Leo Idra Ardiana, E.S.P. Tampoebolon, & Sri Wahyu

Widayati. (1986). Tingkat Tutur Bahasa Jawa Dialek Banyuwangi, Buku I.

Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan

dan Kebudayaan.

Niedzielski, N. A., & Preston, D. R. (1999). Folk linguistics. In Trends in Linguistics:

Vol. 122. Berlin ; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 133

Nothofer, B. (1980). Dialektgeographische Untersuchungen in West-Java und im

westlichen Zentral-Java. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Nothofer, B. (2006). Javanese. In Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and

Linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 113–115). Cambridge: Elsevier.

Nurhayani, I., & Cohn, A. C. (2016). Phonological strategies for intensifying adjectives

in Javanese. NUSA: Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and Other Languages in

Indonesia, 61, 19–41. Retrieved from

http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/bitstream/10108/89603/2/02Nurhayani_Cohn.pdf

Ogloblin, A. K. (2004). Javanese. In K Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann

(Eds.), The of Asia and Madagascar (pp. 590–624).

London: Routledge.

Osing. (2018). Retrieved April 12, 2018, from Ethnologue: Languages of the World

website: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/osi

Pemerintah Kabupaten Banyuwangi. (2017, January 9). Banyuwangi Resmi Punya 25

Kecamatan. Retrieved July 29, 2018, from

https://www.banyuwangikab.go.id/berita-daerah/banyuwangi-resmi-punya-25-

kecamatan.html

Poerwadarminta, W. J. S. (1953). Sarining paramasastra Djawa. Jakarta: Noordhoff-

Kolff.

Rosmasari, T. (2017, March 3). Bahasa Osing, Warisan Iswara Blambangan. In Inside

Indonesia. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpkaQO75b1Y

Samsul Hadi. Keputusan Bupati Banyuwangi Nomor 173 Tahun 2002 Tentang Penetapan

Gandrung Sebagai Maskot Pariwisata Banyuwangi. , (2002). 134

Samsul Hadi. Keputusan Bupati Banyuwangi Nomor 69 Tahun 2003 Tentang

Pemberlakuan Muatan Lokal Wajib Bahasa Using Pada Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar

Di Kabupaten Banyuwangi. , (2003).

Samsul Hadi. Keputusan Bupati Banyuwangi Nomor 147 Tahun 2003 Tentang Penetapan

Tari Jejer Gandrung Sebagai Tari Selamat Datang di Kabupaten Banyuwangi. ,

(2003).

Samsul Hadi. Keputusan Bupati Banyuwangi Nomor 148 Tahun 2003 Tentang Penetapan

Lagu Umbul-Umbul Belambangan Sebagai Lagu Pembangkit Semangat

Membangun Banyuwangi. , (2003).

Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around

the world. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Selleck, C. (2018). “We’re Not Fully Welsh”: Hierarchies of Belonging and “New”

Speakers of Welsh. In C. Smith-Christmas, N. P. Ó Murchadha, M. Hornsby, &

M. Moriarty (Eds.), New Speakers of Minority Languages: Linguistic Ideologies

and Practices (pp. 45–65). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Setiawan, B. (2019, January 30). Banyuwangi Jadi Kota Festival Terbaik, Ada 99

Agenda Wisata. Tempo.Co. Retrieved from

https://travel.tempo.co/read/1170352/banyuwangi-jadi-kota-festival-terbaik-ada-

99-agenda-wisata

Setiawan, I., & Tallapessy, A. (2016). Celebrating Identity in a State-Sponsored Festival:

Commodification of Using Cultures and Hegemonic Power in Post-Reformation

Banyuwangi. 18. Malang. 135

Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2018). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (21st

ed.). Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/

Sneddon, J. N. (2003). The Indonesian language: its history and role in modern society.

Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.

Soegianto (Ed.). (1980). Fungsi Bahasa Daerah (Bahasa Jawa dan Madura) Dalam

Domein Pemerintahan Desa oleh Kerawat Desa di Eks. Keresidenan Besuki.

Jember: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Soekarwo, H. Peraturan Gubernur Jawa Timur Nomor 19 Tahun 2014 Tentang Mata

Pelajaran Bahasa Daerah Sebagai Muatan Lokal Wajib Di Sekolah/Madrasah. ,

(2014).

Soetoko, Soekarto, Abd. Rozak Z., Busyairi, & Hadiri. (1981). Geografi Dialek

Banyuwangi. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen

Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Suharno, I. (1982). A Descriptive Study of Javanese. In Pacific Linguistics, Series D:

Vol. 45. Canberra: Australian National University.

Surani, S., Suparmin, I.C. Sudjarwadi, & Hadiri. (1986a). Fonologi Bahasa Jawa Dialek

Banyuwangi, Buku I. East Java: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Propinsi Jawa Timur.

Surani, S., Suparmin, I.C. Sudjarwadi, & Hadiri. (1986b). Fonologi Bahasa Jawa Dialek

Banyuwangi, Buku II. East Java: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Propinsi Jawa Timur.

Taylor, S. (2003). A place for the future? Residence and continuity in women’s narratives

of their lives. Narrative Inquiry, 13(1), 193–215. 136

Taylor-Leech, K. (2008). Language and identity in East Timor: The discourses of nation

building. Language Problems and Language Planning, 32(2), 153–180.

https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.32.2.04tay

Wessing, R. (2012). Celebrations of Life. The Gendhing Seblang of Banyuwangi, East

Java. Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 99(1), 155–225.

https://doi.org/10.3406/befeo.2012.6154

Widodo AS. Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 40 Tahun 2007. , (2007).

Wikipedia contributors. (2009). Indonesia.

Wikipedia contributors. (2011). Location of East Java in Indonesia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Java#/media/File:East_Java_in_Indonesia.svg

Wikipedia contributors. (2017). Kecamatan Blimbingsari. Retrieved from

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blimbingsari,_Banyuwangi

Wikipedia contributors. (2018). Mataram Sultanate. In Wikipedia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mataram_Sultanate

Wojowasito, S. (1980). A Kawi Lexicon (Roger F. Mills, Ed.). Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies.

Wolff, J. U., Oetomo, D., & Fietkiewicz, D. (1992). Beginning Indonesian Through Self-

Instruction (3rd ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program.

Wouk, F. (2001). Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya. Journal

of Pragmatics, 33(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00139-3

Yanto, D. (2003a). Paseh Basa Using: Dhasare Kurikulum Basa Using Muatan Lokal

Kabupaten Banyuwangi (Kanggo Kelas I SLTP). Banyuwangi: Pemerintah

Kabupaten Banyuwangi. 137

Yanto, D. (2003b). Paseh Basa Using: Dhasare Kurikulum Basa Using Muatan Lokal

Kabupaten Banyuwangi (Kanggo Kelas III SLTP). Banyuwangi: Pemerintah

Kabupaten Banyuwangi.

Yudhoyono, H. S. B. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2009

Tentang Bendera, Bahasa, dan Lambang Negara, serta Lagu Kebangsaan. ,

(2009).

Yudhoyono, H. S. B. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 57 Tahun 2014

Tentang Pemgembangan, Pembinaan, dan Pelindungan Bahasa dan Sastra, serta

Peningkatan Fungsi Bahasa Indonesia. , (2014).

Zahro, F. (2018, August 4). Khofifah Akan Masukkan Bahasa Osing Sebagai Bahasa

Daerah di Jawa Timur. Surya.Co.Id. Retrieved from

http://surabaya.tribunnews.com/2018/08/04/khofifah-akan-masukkan-bahasa-

osing-sebagai-bahasa-daerah-di-jawa-timur 138

Appendix A: Interview Questions

The following is the list of questions I brought to each interview during my research trips to Banyuwangi in 2016 and 2017. This list of questions was designed with the help of Dr.

Nancy Niedzielski in early 2016. All interviews were conducted in Indonesian. Although the interviews regularly veered from the prepared question list, I found these prepared questions helpful in focusing the interviews on language attitudes. Omitted from the below list are questions about basic demographic information (e.g., name and age), which were asked at the start of each interview, and questions about where Osing is spoken, which were asked during the map task.

Persons wishing to use or adapt this list in future research may do so freely.

1) Which languages are spoken in Banyuwangi? Can you name them all? Please try

to name as many as you can.

2) Which languages are considered by most people in Banyuwangi to be most

dignified / least dignified? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

3) Which languages are considered by most people in Banyuwangi to be the coolest /

least cool? Do you agree or disagree?

139

4) Which languages do you speak?

FOR EACH LANGUAGE GIVEN:

a) When did you start speaking Language X?

b) Do you consider yourself fluent in Language X?

c) Do you use Language X every day?

d) Are there any situations in which you would feel uncomfortable using

Language X? Why or why not?

e) Are there any types of people who should not be speaking Language X?

When answering, please consider as many factors as possible, including

the age, gender, ethnicity, religion, level of education, profession, and

income of the speaker.

5) Who speaks Osing? Who does not speak Osing?

6) Are there speakers of Osing who are not ethnically Osing? Who / which types of

people?

140

FOR EACH GROUP:

a) In what contexts do they speak Osing? Are there contexts in which it

would not be appropriate for them to speak Osing? Which contexts?

Why?

b) Are there certain words or phrases that only ethnic Osing would say?

7) Is Osing different from Javanese? If so, in what ways?

8) Is Osing considered by most people in Banyuwangi to be its own language, or a

variety of Javanese? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

9) What are the ways in which ‘Osing’ is spelled? Are different spellings preferred

by different groups of people? If so, which groups use which spellings, and why?

10) There may be different spellings for the name of the ‘Osing’ language. Are all

these spellings used to refer to Osing ethnicity, as well? Are there any spellings

that should not be used to refer to the language? To the ethnicity? Please explain.

141

Appendix B: Abbreviations and Glosses

(Adapted from (Englebretson, 2003: 199))

1SG first-person singular

2SG second-person singular

3SG third-person singular

DP discourse particle

LOC locative

NEG negative morpheme

POSS possessive

Q question particle

REDUP reduplication

142

Appendix C: Discourse Transcription Conventions

(Adapted from (Du Bois et al., 1993), as seen in Englebretson (2003: 200).)

Each transcript line represents a single Intonation Unit.

Speaker labels appear in uppercase, and are followed by a colon.

Simultaneous speech is indicated by square brackets [ ].

. Final intonation contour.

, Continuing intonation contour.

? Appeal intonation contour.

-- Truncated Intonation Unit.

- Truncated word.

@ One pulse of laughter

% Glottal stop.

= Prosodic lengthening.

.. Short pause.

… Long pause.

(TSK) Tongue click.

(H) In-breath.

^ Primary accent/stress.