Vol. 13 (2019), pp. 300–345 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24868 Revised Version Received: 6 Apr 2019

The at risk? Perspectives from an East

Jozina Vander Klok University of Oslo

This paper assesses the language vitality of the Javanese variety spoken in Paci- ran, Lamongan, , using UNESCO’ nine factors as the core approach and the EGIDS framework for comparison. In this assessment, I show that it is crucial to take into account (i) the speech level distinction between ngoko ‘Low Javanese’ and krama/basa ‘High Javanese’, (ii) the urban-rural divide, and (iii) socio-political and economic factors relevant to Indonesia. Due to the neces- sary inclusion of these variables among other factors, I suggest that the EGIDS framework – while still useful – cannot capture the nuances of the linguistic vital- ity situation of Javanese varieties as well as the UNESCO nine factors approach can. Overall, the results suggest that ngoko is presently in a stable diglossic posi- tion with Indonesian, the , while krama is at risk of endanger- ment. In Paciran village, the shift away from krama is towards the local variety of ngoko, compared to Indonesian as the unmarked alternative in urban settings. While a stable result for ngoko as spoken in Paciran village is encouraging, utmost caution must be taken given that negative attitudes towards Javanese varieties have been reported in other rural settings in Java.

1. Introduction1 Javanese (Malayo-Polynesian, Austronesian; ISO 639-3: jav) is in a unique position as a language with one of the largest speaker bases that is reported to be undergoing language shift (Mueller 2009; Setiawan 2012; Ravindranath & Cohn 2014; Abtahian et al. 2016) – and even in some cases, designated as endangered (Ade- laar 2010). Presently, there are likely around 70 million Javanese speakers.2 While a high speaker population can be taken individually as an asset against endangerment, for Javanese, a cluster of factors has been shown to affect its vitality. These factors include the designation of Indonesian (a variant of ) as the official national language (Mueller 2009; Adelaar 2010; Nurani 2015); increased mobility and a ris- ing middle class (Oetomo 1990; Kurniasih 2006; Goebel 2010); as well as effects of

1First, I wish to thank the many people in Paciran village for sharing their opinions and their language expertise with me. I especially want to thank the interview participants, my research assistants Ibu Deti Salamah, Ibu Finatty Ahsanah, and Ibu Nunung, as well as Bapak Zaini & Ibu Maula, Bapak I’id & Ibu Lisa, Bapak Suwanan & Ibu Zumaroh. Thank you to Frank Mueller and Thomas . Conners for helpful discussion as well as the reviewers for insightful comments. I also thank the audiences at ICLDC 5 (International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation) at the University of in March 2017 and DLAP 2 (Documentary Linguistics: Asian Perspectives) at the University of Hong Kong in May 2017 where versions of this paper were presented. 2The report from the 2010 census indicates there are 68,044,660 Javanese speakers from age 5 years and above within a population of 95,217,022 self-identified (’im & Syaputra 2011). Note that the census is based on self-reporting and does not distinguish Javanese speech levels (see §3.2).

Licensed under Creative Commons -ISSN 1934-