ShareThis

Selasa, 27 Oktober 2009

Malam Nusantara's Days 27 Oktober 2009

0 komentar
Malam ini liat pertunjukan kesenian yang di gelar oleh anak IMBASADI (Ikatan Mahasiswa Bahasa dan Sastra Daerah Indonesia)
yang diselenggerakan oleh kerjasama antara Dikti dan FIB UGM.
acara yang digelar pada puku 19.00 wib dibuka oleh bapak rektor UGM dan sambutan dekan FIB.
setelah itu dilnjutkan dengan pertunjukkan daerah, dimulai dari Bali 'pendet', trus ada dari UNPAD 'angklung', trus ada kesenian dari Kal-Sel. dan yang paling heboh adalah kesenian dari Banyumas yang dibawakan oleh sanggar dari Yogya,,wah sampe2 penontonnya ikut goyang semua. terakhir penutupan kembali lagi penonton bergoyang lagi dengan diiringi musik angklung dari UNPAD. Wah sampe2 ga inget waktu, tau2 dah pukul 12.00...
kalo gitu saatnya untuk pulanggggg...
.

Selasa, 20 Oktober 2009

Prague School of LinguisticsToday by FrantišekČermák

0 komentar
František Čermák : Prague School of Linguistics Today

In Prague School of Linguistics Today. Linguistica Pragensia 1, 1995, 1-15.

1. Introduction.

Paradoxically, it seems much easier to assess past events than present time, in which we live. While trying to do this in the case of the Prague School of our time, it is, then, difficult to discern, among the new contributions, all of them being, superficially, rather individual, those features and approaches which do enjoy a broader acceptance by more than one linguist in each case. These and a continued use and elaboration of prewar tenets and concepts of this school set, then, the contemporary Prague scene of, hopefully, a more general nature, which in what follows will be briefly commented on. These remarks are based on various sources, both older and newer, domestic and extraneous (including impressions of some European linguists), which are, however, no guarantee that I will be able to offer an objective overall picture. That must be left to future historians, undoubtedly. It has to be remembered, too, that of the original Prague School members none is alive any longer, although its historian and a prominent figure professor Josef Vachek, has died only last year (1996). Thus, what is called Prague School today is a body of linguists, recently grouped under the heading of the re-established Cercle linguistique de Prague, which represent several postwar generations of pupils of such masters of their trade as Vilém Mathesius, Vladimír Skalička, Bohuslav Havránek, Bohumil Trnka or Roman Jakobson. The body of the postwar and contemporary Prague scene, to name just a few, is made up of, next to those I have already mentioned, by such linguists as P. Trost, P. Sgall, M. Dokulil, F. Daneš, J. Firbas, K. Horálek, K. Hausenblas, M. Komárek, J. Krámský, P. Novák, E. Hajičová, O. Leška and others.

In what follows, attention will be paid to various aspects of the LANGUAGE SYSTEM (or la langue) first, such as opposition, centre-periphery distinction, function, syntactic patterns and language unit of several kinds (i.e. phoneme, morphoneme, nomination, lexeme, idiom, utterance) and some related concepts. In the second part, attention will be drawn to such aspects of the TEXT (or la parole) as dependency, function, valency, topic-focus organization and some other matters. It should be stressed that, unlike mentalistic and speculative approaches, often based on very few examples from a single language, Prague approaches are, as a rule, highly empirical, resulting in detailed descriptions of what is being proposed, the general framework being a recent brand of structuralism, of course. However, as it is beyond the scope of this contribution, almost no mention will be made here of many specialized branches of Prague linguistics oriented to various languages, and the scope will mostly be limited to contributions by general linguists and Slavicists.

2. Language System.

In contrast to the Chomskyan notion of competence, seen, basically, as a set of rules of an individual and suggesting both psychological and operational character of something which is, usually, not mentioned explicitly, Prague linguists take a rather different view, here. Following de Saussure, they understand the language system not only as a set of rules of an individual, but also as a hierarchical depository of all the building-blocks of language, i.e. of words and lexemes and other language units, shared by a body of speakers in general, out of which each individual speaker has made a somewhat personal selection (nowadays called idiolect). Also the notion of the Chomskyan rules is felt to be inadequate in describing the situation in that it covers rules of grammar only and has, accordingly, to be complemented by a set of functions and a number of other types of rules (socio-linguistic, pragmatic, semantic, stylistic and others), all of them being based on a different kind of convention. These are sometimes called, even today and for the sake of brevity, norms. Although this general and traditional concept of norm, which is yet to be explored in more depth, especially in its relation to pragmatics, has, among other things, a definite and obvious bearing on the notion of communicative function, too, there is yet another relationship to be brought to attention. Norm may also be understood as a model for syntagmatic combinations of many kinds in la parole. Recently, this usage of model has gained some frequency especially in syntax.

However, the notion of system, if reduced to its substance, is based on relations of many kinds, existing between its units (forms), which are best known as oppositions; every language unit is made of a unique set of oppositions. While de Saussure never explicitly tried to specify them, Prague linguists did and their findings seem to have gained a general usage nowadays.
Trubeckoy's set of four types of distinctive oppositions, namely bilateral-multilateral, proportional-isolated, privative-gradual-equipollent and constant-neutralized/neutralizable is, perhaps, best known, but it is by no means exhaustive in its domain. Both he and others also considered other types, such as homogeneous-heterogenous, disjunctive-non-disjunctive, linear-non-linear, simple-complex, constant-not-constant or localized-non-localized, and, beside well-documented phonology, and they related these oppositions to morphology, lexicology and semantics as well as to suprasegmental tone differentiation and typology. Here, it is especially Jakobson's treatment of the case system which might serve as a well-known example. This development went on finding more complex relations, i.e. correlations. To try to enumerate here the number of the correlations found and described (some 40 types), correlation being a more complex concept closely related to opposition and dependence and suggesting a systematic occurrence, is just not possible, for they are too numerous.

It is precisely out of this intellectual relation-based orientation towards breaking structures of both the system and text into a finite set of relations and classifying them that yet another and powerful distinction arose, which found its full treatment and had some interesting consequences only after the last war. This centre-periphery distinction is now generally understood as a continuous and gradual, scalar relation or, rather, opposition of what is on the one hand, generally unmarked and regular, used rather often and being primary or underived and of what is, on the other hand, marked and often irregular, of a lower frequency of use and secondary in its derivational nature. It goes without saying that this distinction, applied to all language strata or levels, exhibits a similar distribution of functional load: what is central in language, be it phonemes, morphemes, lexemes or sentence types, has a high functional load and vice versa. Undoubtedly, this distinction of centre-periphery has evolved from the influential idea of potentiality of language phenomena of V. Mathesius, an idea voiced even before de Saussure's Cours came out (more about it in 2.).

It is not really relevant, in this context, whether another major and highly employed notion of the Prague analysis, that of un/markedness, came into being before or after the centre-periphery distinction. What is relevant, however, is their mutual relation. The notion of markedness, applicable anywhere where at least a binary opposition is to be found, suggesting presence of a system feature in a form (unit) or structure and having thus a simple additional nature, seems to be so general as to be almost pre-theoretical in its nature. It is perhaps because of this that it has been so widely employed, and not only in linguistics.

A major Prague term of function brings the development of the original and simple notion of relation to its peak. Though de Saussure used the term rather occasionally, it has, nowadays, become an attribute of several linguistic schools, indeed. The notion of function, present in various approaches in more than one sense, has brought together traditional insular linguistic thinking and atomism with new external influences represented by semiotics, or specifically, by sign. In contradistinction to a quasi-mathematical Hjelmslevian view of the function as a dependency between functives or entities, the Prague conception of function is somewhat different, stressing that the functional relation is one between an entity or language unit and other units, or, rather, between a unit of a lower order and a higher unit or structure. This is why this view may often be explained as task or role played by an element in a structure (reserved originally for phonology only and called delimitative function) or in a paradigm (distinctive function) etc. Though the basis for this distinction was laid down before the 2nd world war already, a major development in the second sense of the term, that of the communicative function, was yet to come in the postwar years. [Let me add, that it is perhaps due to my modest contribution in having translated to Czech both Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse and Cours de linguistique générale that some sort of recent bridge between Prague, Hjelmslev and de Saussure could have been re-established leading, e.g., to a recent introduction of Hjelmslev's notion of functive into some Prague contributions.]


Having based his system of six communicative functions on earlier ideas of K. Bühler, B. Malinowski and J. Mukařovský, R. Jakobson offered a whole new basis for viewing both oral and written texts comprehensively. What is important is that this comprehensive character also had a number of semiotic aspects, with the pragmatic one being quite prominent (though under a different label), reaffirming, yet again, the semiotic orientation of the Prague linguistics. A further development of the function in the first sense, i. e. of the distinctive function, is to be seen in a current dichotomy, used nowadays, of structural function, being generalized and extrapolated more or less directly from phonology, and nominative function, being closely linked with semiotic aspects of the language denomination. Thus, a complementary set of la langue and la parole functions has been devised, incorporating their relation to sign and, in the ultimate view, to the extralinguistic reality.

Language system has always been viewed, among other things, as having several strata or levels, each with a typical unit of its own. There has been some development here, too. While the concept and place of phonology and morphology have, basically, remained - with some refinements taking place in both - the same as before the war, the existence of the level of lexicon (lexicology) as one of the major level of the language has been reaffirmed and elaborated into a comprehensive theory and description. It is only to be regretted that the idea of a parallel existence of interlevels connecting, in each case, two neighbouring levels, originating in and having been inspired by that of morpho(pho)nology, has never been pursued to its logical end (known, e.g., from the lectures of professor Skalička). Next to the traditional four levels of phonology and morphology, which have been largely explored in the direction of word formation, lexicon and syntax, it has been found that a separate level of collocations, due to its specific character and numerous language units belonging here, is feasible as a level as well.

The syntactic level has long been considered to be made up of more than one layer, the best-known picture, perhaps, being offered by the three-level approach (Daneš 1964) in which grammatical structure of the sentence is distinguished from its semantic structure and its propositional (or textual) organization. Attempts have also been made to postulate a level of subjective, mainly evaluational individual expression of the speaker's attitudes (Poldauf 1964), belonging, clearly, into pragmatics. Sometimes, a level of discourse or hypersyntax is postulated, too, representing early and some of the first attempts at text linguistics in Prague.

As to the language units related to these levels, the traditional repertoir of the phoneme, morpheme, morphoneme, lexeme (word) and sentence has been expanded to include new units in the lexicon and syntax. Thus lexicology operates, next to word and lexeme with the notion of (de)nomination, introduced by V. Mathesius. This term, linked explicitly with the nominative function of the language units, mentioned above, suggests an operational approach, on the speaker's part, to facts and ideas he wants to put in words in a sentence, primarily. Since many nominations are stable and repeatable, a number of them forms a part of the speaker's lexicon, or, rather, vocabulary. Viewed statically, they include, on the one hand, words or lexemes, but also idioms (phrasemes) and all of the set non-idiomatic combinations, including those which have a sentence character and which it is difficult to call lexemes (Filipec-Čermák 1985). While idioms are viewed as anomalous combinations of many kinds and are to be distinguished against the full background of all paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in the system only, the semantic aspect, which is just one of many here, comes to the fore in the treatment of the nomination in the field of the word formation (Dokulil 1962). Here, a successful and unique attempt at an onomasiological theory of the denomination has been made, resulting into a highly convincing and detailed description of the whole field; the original theory has been influential also abroad, being, among other things, translated into Polish. Similarly, the theory of idioms has been successfully applied to a description, resulting into a multi-volume dictionary of Czech idioms.

In relation to lexical-type units, at least one more remark must be made here. It is now currently admitted that words, lexemes or idioms alike have an intrinsic, system-based quality called valency, which - present as their combinatorial, syntagmatic potential in the lexicon - is being realised (actualised) in syntactic operations of the utterrance (i.e. an occurrence of a sentence, primarily). This important notion, originally employed in syntax exclusively, has become a basis of a whole new syntactic approach, which I will come to later.

In syntax, the term of utterance (promluva, later also výpově_, vyskazivanije, Sprachäusserung), has been around since the prewar times, though a major elaboration (by Skalička 1937 and others) came later. It is, as is well known, such an act of la parole which is identified by the unity of the speaker, time and place and may be interpreted as an elementary semiotic reaction to an impulse of some sort; as such, it represents the first major breakthrough into the territory of la parole. Its functional character (being a reaction to an impulse) as well as a semiotic and communication-oriented one (being, among other things, indexical) is evident. It is true that this type of unit may seem to be quite broad and, accordingly, vague, as it may range, in its form, from a single word to a novel of several hundred pages if written in the ich-form (especially without any full stops). But it is significant that no later attempts at a more precise segmentation of text into some sort of units, primarily those of the speech acts theory, have ever scored a complete success and unambiguous acceptance, having been left equally vague and, which more is important, selective of the field that they are supposed to cover.

Another development in syntax, related to the view of the system and its norms, or models, referred to above, took place in an elaboration of the syntactic patterns which are seen as system-based and which may, ultimately, be traced to de Saussure himself, though this fact is hardly ever mentioned at all. These patterns are then structural patterns, limited in number, which serve as models for the formation of sentences on several levels. In a recent development, this idea has been linked with that of valency and further elaborated into a comprehensive theory of syntax.

Such units as morpheme, lexeme (word) or idiom, though not phoneme or sentence, are traditionally viewed as language signs. The prewar discussion and doubts, never really protracted in Prague, about the arbitrary character of these signs are now over, the original Saussurean tenet being held to be true in a modified form. The widely accepted modification, in the sense of limited intra-language motivation of some signs, has been further elaborated primarily in idioms; it is also reflected in Mathesius's distinction of descriptive (motivated) nomination vs. simple nomination.

So far, these remarks have focussed on the language system in general, which is viewed synchronically. However, such a synchronic view is possible only once the crucial distinction of synchrony-diachrony is made and satisfactorily established. And that has been, of course, one of the major controversial points in the past, where especially Jakobson and Trnka voiced numerous objections, also after the war, against this distinction of de Saussure. Some views go so far as to weaken substantially or reject altogether the synchrony-diachrony distinction (Trnka 1988, 195): "The Linguistic circle of Prague conceives language as a system of sign oppositions (and concludes, at the same time, that it does not cease to be a structure and system even in its historical development). By applying the notion of language system to its historical perspective, the Circle has reconciled linguistic diachrony with synchrony, contrary to F. de Saussure's theory" (the part in parentheses is from the somewhat larger Czech original, p. 192).

The misunderstanding behind these words indicates clearly that Trnka never linked the synchrony-diachrony distinction with the crucial notion of the state of language which is viewed differently in different periods and is the basis for postulating existence of the system. De Saussure could have never argued that the historical periods are devoid of system; what he would have stressed, instead, is that every single state of language must have its own system. Of course, this has been an extreme position taken in the protracted discussion by one scholar only, and Trnka may not not be quite right in formulating this view also on behalf of the other Praguians.

It is clear that much of the misunderstanding behind such attitudes stems from a bad reading of de Saussure's Cours which was partly due to a lack of Czech translation (prepared and published by myself only recently). It is evident now that de Saussure (Cours, pages 234-5) viewed the language state as constantly fluctuating, hesitating and full of imperfect analyses where no absolute dividing-line between what is strictly synchronous and diachronous could be drawn. Perhaps the controversy could never have arisen if he had kept the original distinction statique-dynamique, abandoned later for synchronique-diachronique one. It is something of an irony that roughly at the same time and under the same names Vilém Mathesius used in Prague, in his study of 1911, which de Saussure had no way of knowing, of course, the term static (fluctuation) opposed to dynamic (changeability), a term very much in use even nowadays. The general term for the static character of the synchronous language system used by Mathesius (1911) was potentiality of language, which he characterized, accordingly, as dynamic oscillation and fluctuation of its elements.

Of course, in a discussion of this kind, one has to distinguish individual views and suggestions, however extreme sometimes, from the mainstream of thought. The latter may be seen, for the Prague School, in the prestigeous Grammar of Czech of B. Havránek, one of the founding members of the Prague School, and A. Jedlička (1981); the book has helped to form several postwar generations of Czech linguists. The quotations refer unequivocally to the undisputed acceptance of this Saussurean dichotomy: "Scientifically explained description and analysis of language from the point of view of its state in a given time is called synchronic" (p.10). "Such a scientific explanation of language from the point of view of its development is called diachronic, or just traditionally, historic (developmental)" (p.12). In what follows, both the terms static and dynamic as well as the idea of fluctuating and dynamic character of language is mentioned, too. Consequently, attempts at any major discussion or revision have stopped ever since.

But the attempts at getting to the essence of the language went on and some of them took a very general and abstract shape, indeed, covering all languages. The ideas of language typology from the past were taken up by V. Skalička and given a coherent frame of five major language types (isolating, inflectional, agglutinative, introflectional and polysynthetic), which are conceived of as ideal constructs made of a number (i.e. over 20) mutually supporting features. It is supposed, in contrast, that natural languages are a mixture of different features of more than one type. Skalička's best contributions and typological analyses of many languages came all after the war; some of them came out in 1979 in a volume published in German. One can only speculate how far his ideas, representing one of the finest and realistic theories of typology at all, have influenced, supposedly through Jakobson in America, the later development of the theory of language universals. Of course, there have been some modifications and extensions of Skalička's approach (such as that of Sgall 1986), stressing, for example, as the core of each type one predominant feature only, from which a number of other features can be deduced; for most purposes, such a major feature may be seen in the manner in which grammatical and derivative values are expressed in form (i.e. by morpheme, its alternation and order).


3. TEXT

It is not surprising that the post-war Prague linguists, having taken over basic views of the language system from the prewar period, have paid an increased attention to matters of text.

First and foremost, attention has long been paid, traditionally, to the analysis of the sentence where a number of dependency approaches have evolved. It is perhaps of some interest that no overt reference was made to L. Tesni‚re, a French member of the prewar Prague school, until valency theories sprung up in Europe some two decades ago, which is to say that there has been, in part, an independent parallel development in Prague. It is now clear that dependency analysis is not just a notational variant of constituent analysis and that it is controlled by quite different principles but it also seems, that dependency analysis allows for more patterns of structure derived from heads and, accordingly, for a greater amount of information conveyed by such analysis than constituency approaches do; in other words, valency frames employed offer much more information than, e.g., theta grids. Moreover, the degree of formalization that such versions of dependency description as those of functional generative description by P. Sgall et al. (1986) are able to achieve is equally high as that of other, purely generative approaches. Whereas it makes do without transformations on the one hand, this approach incorporates, on the other hand, both valency and functional sentence perspective component, representing, thus, much more than a theory of the sentence only (Sgall 1993). The former, i.e. valency, is conceived of as a vertical dimension in the dependency tree, while the latter as a horizontal dimension of the deep word order.

It should be stressed, however, that both valency and functional sentence perspective theory or, rather, topic and focus theory, the latter having been brought into Czech linguistics in the prewar papers of V. Mathesius and developed most consistently by J. Firbas (1992) and his followers, are current concern of many other Czech linguists, too (Daneš 1974, Mluvnice češtiny 1986, 1987). The original dichotomy of topic and comment (theme and rheme), modelled, basically, after the "known-new" distinction and viewed as a pragmatic component of text, has been added a third component of transition, elaborated to a considerable detail, as well as a scalar view of the communicative dynamism by which the notion of the degree of communicative information has been introduced. Due to the need to elaborate the concept of the focus, primarily, considerable attention has been paid to the problem of negation and presupposition (Hajičová 1973), too. It has also been demonstrated (Daneš 1974) that the concept of the topic-focus dichotomy is relevant for the structure of discourse where the position of a sentence is due to the way its topic-focus organization looks like.

At the same time, since topic-focus partition of the sentence, situated in its deep structure, is an inherent part of it, it became clear that it is an indispensable part of any semantic analysis of the sentence. By the same virtue, this distinction must be viewed as a mechanism allowing the interactive, functional communicative modification of the basic propositional structure of the sentence, based, among other things, on the theory of communicative functions of Jakobson, too. In the ultimate view, this sort of theoretical approach to text and its parts reaffirms the teleological (teleonomic) view of language, jointly stressed already by Jakobson and others (which became familiar as "means-ends model of language", Vachek 1967), in which this philosophy of language may be phrased as seeing it as a set of purposive means serving a goal. Once adopted, however, this view leads to some of the basic questions one can ask about language, such as: is it here primarily where the communicative needs of this order, if not fully satisfied by the existing means, give rise, ultimately, to changes of the system and are the very source of diachrony that F. de Saussure had in mind (and that Jakobson viewed as constituting a system within diachrony) ?

Like the topic-focus theory, valency has become, next to its treatment by Sgall et alii, a major, in fact, a core part of valency-based theory of syntax by Daneš and others. Here, the concept of valency, limited to that of the verb so far, has become an integral part of the sentence-patterns theory of syntax, in which more than one level of these patterns is considered. A prominent role in this theory, which materialized into a recent grammar of Czech language (1987), is played by the attention paid to semantics which became a substantial part of it. Unfortunately, the boundary between various semantically-based actants and, more generally, between the syntax itself and the lexicon, is yet in need of more elaboration. A significant development in the theory of valency has been the distinction of obligatory versus optional participants, seen as internal, which have been contrasted with free modifications of the verb (these being also obligatory in such cases as to behave somehow, to arrive somewhere).


4. OTHER ISSUES

A number of links between linguistics and other disciplines have been established before the war already. This has been going on after the war, too, where structuralist approaches to semiotics and aesthetics, represented by J. Mukařovský, and by theories of the standard language and functional styles, represented by B. Havránek, primarily, have to be mentioned, though Jakobson, too, had much to say along these lines.

Last, but not least, wide and long-term attention paid to matters of writing, and graphemic systems by J. Vachek has to be mentioned.

5. CONCLUSION

Due to a traditional and ever-growing emphasis on relation (dependency, valency etc.), our focus of interest is gradually being shifted from static and somewhat primitive (paradigmatic) classifications and mere abstract phrase-structure syntax approaches with no place for any substance and words left, to these syntagmatic aspects of language units. However, there is much in the paradigmatic aspects where further development is to be desired. But, it also seems nowadays, among other things, that the role of the word as the central unit of the language, since de Saussure's times somewhat neglected in some approaches, is, yet again, getting an increased attention, being reaffirmed as an entity made of a bundle of features, Saussurean oppositions.
Mathesius' influence is still very much alive in Prague; all of the notions referred to above, representing an organic and compact blend of both prewar and postwar thinking, seem to have become international and are being used, in varying degree, in non-Prague milieus, too. Their impact may be different in different countries, which is only natural, but all of them seem to have remained stimuli for others.

Bibliography:


Čermák F. 1989, Ferdinand de Saussure a jeho Kurs (F. de Saussure and his Course). In F. de S., Kurs obecné lingvistiky, 15-28
Daneš D., 1964, A Three-Level Approach to Syntax. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1, Academia Prague, 221-240
Daneš F., ed. 1974, Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Academia Praha
Daneš F., Hlavsa Z. a kol. 1987, Větné vzorce v češtině (Sentence Patterns in Czech). Academia Praha
Daneš F., Grepl M., Hlavsa Z., eds. 1987, Mluvnice češtiny 3. Skladba (Grammar of Czech 3. Syntax). Academia Praha
Dokulil M., 1962, Tvoření slov v češtině 1. Teorie odvozování slov (Word Formation in Czech 1. Theory of Word Derivation). Academia Praha
Filipec J. - Čermák F. 1985, Česká lexikologie (Czech Lexicology). Academia Praha
Firbas J., 1992, Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge U.P. Cambridge
Hajičová E., 1973, Negation and topic vs. comment. Philologica Pragensia 16, 81-93
Hausenblas K., 1964, On characterization and classification of discourses. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1, 67-84
Havránek B., 1963, Studie o spisovném jazyce (Studies on Literary Language). Academia Praha
Havránek B., Jedlička A. 1981, Česká mluvnice (Czech Grammar). SPN Praha, 4th ed.
Hjelmslev L. 1943, Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse. K_benhavn (Czech translation by F. Čermák, O základech teorie jazyka, Praha is from 1972)
Jakobson R. 1931, Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie. TCLP 4, 247-267
Jakobson R., 1960, Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In T. A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language. Cambridge (Mass.), 350-377
Jakobson R., 1983, Dialogy (Dialogues between Roman Jakobson and Kristina Pomorska). Český spisovatel 1993 Praha
Leška O., Nekvapil J., Šoltys O. 1987, Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle, Philologica Pragensia 30, 77-109
Mathesius V. 1911, O potenciálnosti jevů jazykových (On the Potentiality of Language Phenomena). In Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk, tř. historická, Praha
Mathesius V. 1929, Zielen und Aufgaben der vergleichenden Phonologie. Xenia Pragensia Ernesto Kraus...Praha, Jednota českých matematiků a fyziků, 432- 445
Mathesius V. 1931, Zur Problem der Belastungs- und Kombinations-fähigkeit der Phoneme. TCLP 4, 148-152
Mathesius V. 1936, On Some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of Grammar. TCLP 6, 95-107
Mathesius V. 1940, Příspěvek k strukturálnímu rozboru anglické zásoby slovní (A Contribution to Structural Analysis of the English Word-Stock). Časopis pro moderní filologii 26, 79-84
Mathesius V., 1975, A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Academia Prague
Mathesius V. 1982, Jazyk, kultura a slovesnost (Language, Culture and Verbal Art). Odeon Praha
Mluvnice češtiny (A Grammar of Czech in 3 volumes by a body of authors) 1986, 1987 Academia Praha
Nebeská I. 1987, Ke klasickému pojetí normy v české lingvistice (On the Classical Conception of Norm in Czech Linguistics). Slovo a slovesnost 48, 334-342
Neústupný J.V., 1993, Poststrukturalismus a Pražská škola (Poststructuralism and the Prague School). Slovo a slovesnost 54, 1-7
Petkevič V., 1987, A New Dependency Based Specification of Underlying Representations of Sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 14, 143-172
Petkevič V., 1990, An Extended Dependency Based Specification of Underlying Representations of Sentences. PhD Thesis Praha MFFUK
Plátek M., Sgall J., Sgall P., 1984, A dependency base for a linguistic description. In Sgall 1984, 63-97
Poldauf I., 1964, The Third Syntactical Plan. Travaux linguistique de Prague 1, Academia Prague, 241-255
Praguiana. Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School, 1983, ed. J. Vachek. Academia Praha
Projet de terminologie phonologique standardisée. TCLP 4, 309-323
Saussure de F. 1982, Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique préparée par Tulio de Mauro. Payot Paris (3rd. ed. of the original from 1916)
Saussure de F. 1989, Kurs obecné lingvistiky. Odeon Praha (translated from the critical edition of de Saussure 1982 into Czech with a commentary and additional excerpts from the manuscript edition of R. Engler 1967, 1968, 1974 by F. Čermák)
Sgall P., Nebeský L., Goralčíková A., Hajičová E., 1969, A functional approach to syntax in generative description of language. American Elsevier New York Sgall P., Hajičová E., Buráňová E. 1980, Aktuální členění věty v češtině (A Functional Sentence Perspective in Czech Sentence). Academia Praha
Sgall P., 1984, Contributions to functional syntax, semantics and language comprehension. Benjamins Amsterdam - Academia Prague
Sgall P., 1986, Classical Typology and Modern Linguistics. Folia Linguistica 20, 15-28
Sgall P., Hajičová E., Panevová J., 1986, The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Academia Prague - D. Reidel Dordrecht
Sgall P., 1993, The Role of Lexical Data in a Dependency-Based Description. In Theorie und Praxis des Lexikons, eds. F. Beckmann, G. Heyer, W. de Gruyter Berlin New York, 43-53
Skalička V. 1937, Promluva jako lingvistický pojem (Utterrance as a Linguistic Concept). Slovo a slovesnost 3, 163-166
Skalička V. 1948, The Need for a Linguistics of "la parole". Recueil linquistique de Bratislava I, 21-38
Skalička V., 1979, Typologische Studien, eds. P. Hartmann, P. Sgall. Braunschweig Vieweg
Theses. Mélanges linguistiques dédiés au au premier congr‚s des philologues slaves, 1929. TCLP 1, 5-29
Trnka B. 1943, Obecné otázky strukturálního jazykozpytu (General Problems of Structural Liguistics). Slovo a slovesnost 9, 57-68
Trnka B. 1948, Jazykozpyt a myšlenková struktura doby (Linguistics and the Intellectual structure of the Period). Slovo a slovesnost 10, 73-80
Trnka B. 1988, Kapitoly z funkční jazykovědy. Studies in Functional Linguistics. Univerzita Karlova Praha
Trubeckoj N. 1939, Grundzüge der Phonologie. TCLP 7 Prague
Vachek J., Dictionnaire de linguistique de l'école de Prague. Spectrum Utrecht/Anvers 1960 (a Russian translation appeared in 1964)
Vachek J. 1966, The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to its Theory and Practice. London Bloomington
Vachek J. 1967, A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Indiana U.P. Bloomington London
Vachek J., 1973, Written Language: General problems and problems of English. Mouton The Hague
Vachek J., ed., 1983, Praguina. Benjamins Amsterdam - Academia Prague

Senin, 19 Oktober 2009

Quick Fix For Mastering English

0 komentar
  1. Try to watch American moveis so much and see the translation in your own languwage at the same time.
  2. Listen to English songs too much while you seeing the lyrics"the words of the song" at the same time.
  3. Try to friend to English and American peoople.
  4. Read short stories for children in English then try to translate into your own language.
  5. Speak to yourself in english about your own secrets.
  6. write your notes in english.
  7. Transfer the languages of your mobile into english.
  8. Put small stickers on things in english for example"put on bed sticker with bed.on window sticker with window and do"
  9. Join alot to english groups and foreigner groups talk in english
  10. Join English Course/online forum such: BBC Learning or another ;)


Have a nice practicing this way>>>>>

Minggu, 04 Oktober 2009

Asal Usul Nama Indonesia

0 komentar
Berikut ini adalah sejarah asal kata nama Indonesia. Bila kita belajar sejarah hanya sebatas hafalan dan nilai bagus saja, maka tidak akan ada gunanya, hanya nyempit-nyempitin ruang di dalam pikiran kita saja. Tetapi bila kita ditanamkan rasa cinta kepada tanah air, maka sejarah akan mempengaruhi seluruh karya kita. Ini yang tidak dilakukan oleh sistem pendidikan kita. Seperti kalau kita jatuh cinta pada seseorang, pasti akan setengah mati mengetahui sejarah dia dan asal usulnya. Bila belajar sejarah seperti itu, tentunya akan sangat mengasyikkan. Berkarya bukan lagi dengan pikiran, tetapi dengan rasa. Karena rasa menciptakan keunikan dan kreatif.

Mudah-mudahan artikel berikut ini dapat membuka wawasan kita tentang Indonesia dan kemudian dapat terpancing untuk lebih lanjut mencari tahu sendiri. Sehingga seluruh kerja dan karya kita tidak lagi hanya meniru, tetapi merupakan suatu persembahan kreatif kepada diri sendiri, negara dan masyarakat dunia. -zee

Asal Usul Nama Indonesia, Oleh IRFAN ANSHORY

PADA zaman purba, kepulauan tanah air kita disebut dengan aneka nama. Dalam catatan bangsa Tionghoa kawasan kepulauan kita dinamai Nan-hai (Kepulauan Laut Selatan). Berbagai catatan kuno bangsa India menamai kepulauan ini Dwipantara (Kepulauan Tanah Seberang), nama yang diturunkan dari kata Sansekerta dwipa (pulau) dan antara (luar, seberang). Kisah Ramayana karya pujangga Valmiki yang termasyhur itu menceritakan pencarian terhadap Sinta, istri Rama yang diculik Ravana, sampai ke Suwarnadwipa (Pulau Emas, yaitu Sumatra sekarang) yang terletak di Kepulauan Dwipantara.

Bangsa Arab menyebut tanah air kita Jaza’ir al-Jawi (Kepulauan Jawa). Nama Latin untuk kemenyan adalah benzoe, berasal dari bahasa Arab luban jawi (kemenyan Jawa), sebab para pedagang Arab memperoleh kemenyan dari batang pohon Styrax sumatrana yang dahulu hanya tumbuh di Sumatra. Sampai hari ini jemaah haji kita masih sering dipanggil “Jawa" oleh orang Arab. Bahkan orang Indonesia luar Jawa sekalipun. "Samathrah, Sholibis, Sundah, kulluh Jawi (Sumatra, Sulawesi, Sunda, semuanya Jawa)" kata seorang pedagang di Pasar Seng, Mekah. Lalu tibalah zaman kedatangan orang Eropa ke Asia. Bangsa-bangsa Eropa yang pertama kali datang itu beranggapan bahwa Asia hanya terdiri dari Arab, Persia, India, dan Cina. Bagi mereka, daerah yang terbentang luas antara Persia dan Cina semuanya adalah "Hindia".

Semenanjung Asia Selatan mereka sebut "Hindia Muka" dan daratan Asia Tenggara dinamai "Hindia Belakang". Sedangkan tanah air kita memperoleh nama "Kepulauan Hindia" (Indische Archipel, Indian Archipelago, l’Archipel Indien) atau "Hindia Timur" (Oost Indie, East Indies, Indes Orientales). Nama lain yang juga dipakai adalah "Kepulauan Melayu" (Maleische Archipel, Malay Archipelago, l’Archipel Malais).

Ketika tanah air kita terjajah oleh bangsa Belanda, nama resmi yang digunakan adalah Nederlandsch-Indie (Hindia Belanda), sedangkan pemerintah pendudukan Jepang 1942-1945 memakai istilah To-Indo (Hindia Timur). Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820-1887), yang dikenal dengan nama samaran Multatuli, pernah mengusulkan nama yang spesifik untuk menyebutkan kepulauan tanah air kita, yaitu Insulinde, yang artinya juga "Kepulauan Hindia" (bahasa Latin insula berarti pulau). Tetapi rupanya nama Insulinde ini ku rang populer. Bagi orang Bandung, Insulinde mungkin cuma dikenal sebagai nama toko buku yang pernah ada di Jalan Otista.

Pada tahun 1920-an, Ernest Francois Eugene Douwes Dekker (1879-1950),
yang kita kenal sebagai Dr. Setiabudi (beliau adalah cucu dari adik Multatuli), memopulerkan suatu nama untuk tanah air kita yang tidak mengandung unsur kata "India". Nama itu tiada lain adalah Nusantara, suatu istilah yang telah tenggelam berabad-abad lamanya. Setiabudi mengambil nama itu dari Pararaton, naskah kuno zaman Majapahit yang ditemukan di Bali pada akhir abad ke-19 lalu diterjemahkan oleh J.L.A. Brandes dan diterbitkan oleh Nicholaas Johannes Krom pada tahun 1920.

Namun perlu dicatat bahwa pengertian Nusantara yang diusulkan Setiabudi jauh berbeda dengan pengertian, nusantara zaman Majapahit. Pada masa Majapahit Nusantara digunakan untuk menyebutkan pulau-pulau di luar Jawa (antara dalam bahasa Sansekerta artinya luar, seberang) sebagai lawan dari Jawadwipa (Pulau Jawa). Kita tentu pernah mendengar Sumpah Palapa dari Gajah Mada, "Lamun huwus kalah nusantara, isun amukti palapa" (Jika telah kalah pulau-pulau seberang, barulah saya menikmati istirahat). Oleh Dr. Setiabudi kata nusantara zaman Majapahit yang berkonotasi jahiliyah itu diberi pengertian yang nasionalistis. Dengan mengambil kata Melayu asli antara, maka Nusantara kini memiliki arti yang baru yaitu "nusa di antara dua benua dan dua samudra", sehingga Jawa pun termasuk dalam definisi nusantara yang modern. Istilah nusantara dari Setiabudi ini dengan cepat menjadi populer penggunaannya sebagai alternatif dari nama Hindia Belanda.

Sampai hari ini istilah nusantara tetap kita pakai untuk menyebutkan wilayah tanah air kita dari Sabang sampai Merauke. Tetapi nama resmi bangsa dan negara kita adalah Indonesia. Kini akan kita telusuri dari mana gerangan nama yang sukar bagi lidah Melayu ini muncul.

Nama Indonesia

Pada tahun 1847 di Singapura terbit sebuah majalah ilmiah tahunan, Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia (JIAEA), yang dikelola oleh James Richardson Logan (1819-1869), orang Skotlandia yang meraih sarjana hukum dari Universitas Edinburgh. Kemudian pada tahun 1849 seorang ahli etnologi bangsa Inggris, George Samuel Windsor Earl (1813-1865), menggabungkan diri sebagai redaksi majalah JIAEA.

Dalam JIAEA Volume IV tahun 1850, halaman 66-74, Earl menulis artikel On the Leading Characteristics of the Papuan, Australian and Malay-Polynesian Nations. Dalam artikelnya itu Earl menegaskan bahwa sudah tiba saatnya bagi penduduk Kepulauan Hindia at au Kepulauan Melayu untuk memiliki nama khas (a distinctive name), sebab nama Hindia tidaklah tepat dan sering rancu dengan penyebutan India yang lain. Earl mengajukan dua pilihan nama: Indunesia atau Malayunesia (nesos dalam bahasa Yunani berarti pulau). Pada halaman 71 artikelnya itu tertulis: … the inhabitants of the Indian Archipelago or Malayan Archipelago would become respectively Indunesians or Malayunesians.

Earl sendiri menyatakan memilih nama Malayunesia (Kepulauan Melayu) daripada Indunesia (Kepulauan Hindia), sebab Malayunesia sangat tepat untuk ras Melayu, sedangkan Indunesia bisa juga digunakan untuk Ceylon (Srilanka) dan Maldives (Maladewa). Lagi pula, kata Earl, bukankah bahasa Melayu dipakai di seluruh kepulauan ini? Dalam tulisannya itu Earl memang menggunakan istilah Malayunesia dan tidak memakai istilah Indunesia.

D alam JIAEA Volume IV itu juga, halaman 252-347, James Richardson Logan menulis artikel The Ethnology of the Indian Archipelago. Pada awal tulisannya, Logan pun menyatakan perlunya nama khas bagi kepulauan tanah air kita, sebab istilah "Indian Archipelago" terlalu panjang dan membingungkan. Logan memungut nama Indunesia yang dibuang Earl, dan huruf u digantinya dengan huruf o agar ucapannya lebih baik. Maka lahirlah istilah Indonesia.

Untuk pertama kalinya kata Indonesia muncul di dunia dengan tercetak pada halaman 254 dalam tulisan Logan: Mr. Earl suggests the ethnographical term Indunesian, but rejects it in favour of Malayunesian. I prefer the purely geographical term Indonesia, which is merely a shorter synonym for the Indian Islands or the ! Indian Archipelago. Ketika mengusulkan nama "Indonesia" agaknya Logan tidak menyadari bahwa di kemudian hari nama itu akan menjadi nama bangsa dan negara yang jumlah penduduknya peringkat keempat terbesar di muka bumi!

Sejak saat itu Logan secara konsisten menggunakan nama "Indonesia" dalam tulisan-tulisan ilmiahnya, dan lambat laun pemakaian istilah ini menyebar di kalangan para ilmuwan bidang etnologi dan geografi. Pada tahun 1884 guru besar etnologi di Universitas Berlin yang bernama Adolf Bastian (1826-1905) menerbitkan buku Indonesien oder die Inseln des Malayischen Archipel sebanyak lima volume, yang memuat hasil penelitiannya ketika mengembara ke tanah air kita tahun 1864 sampai 1880. Buku Bastian inilah yang memopulerkan istilah "Indonesia" di kalangan sarjana Belanda, sehingga sempat timbul anggapan bahwa istilah "Indonesia" itu ciptaan Bastian. Pendapat yang tidak benar itu, antara lain tercantum dalamEncyclopedie van Nederlandsch-Indie tahun 1918. Padahal Bastian mengambil istilah "Indonesia" itu dari tulisan-tulisan Logan.

Putra ibu pertiwi yang mula-mula menggunakan istilah "Indonesia" adalah Suwardi Suryaningrat (Ki Hajar Dewantara). Ketika di buang ke negeri Belanda tahun 1913 beliau mendirikan sebuah biro pers dengan nama Indonesische Pers-bureau.

Makna politis

Pada dasawarsa 1920-an, nama "Indonesia" yang merupakan istilah ilmiah dalam etnologi dan geografi itu diambil alih oleh tokoh-tokoh pergerakan kemerdekaan tanah air kita, sehingga nama "Indonesia" akhirnya memiliki makna politis, yaitu identitas suatu bangsa yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan! Akibatnya pemerintah Belanda mulai curiga dan waspada terhadap pemakaian kata ciptaan Logan itu.

Pada tahun 1922 atas inisiatif Mohammad Hatta, seorang mahasiswa Handels Hoogeschool (Sekolah Tinggi Ekonomi) di Rotterdam, organisasi pelajar dan mahasiswa Hindia di Negeri Belanda (yang terbentuk tahun 1908 dengan nama Indische Vereeniging) berubah nama menjadi Indonesische Vereeniging atau Perhimpoenan Indonesia. Majalah mereka, Hindia Poetra, berganti nama menjadi Indonesia Merdeka.

Bung Hatta menegaskan dalam tulisannya, "Negara Indonesia Merdeka yang akan datang (de toekomstige vrije Indonesische staat) mustahil disebut "Hindia Belanda". Juga tidak "Hindia" saja, sebab dapat menimbulkan kekeliruan dengan India yang asli. Bagi kami nama Indonesia menyatakan suatu tujuan politik (een politiek doel), karena melambangkan dan mencita-citakan suatu tanah air di masa depan, dan untuk mewujudkannya tiap orang Indonesia (Indonesier) akan berusaha dengan segala tenaga dan kemampuannya."

Sementara itu, di tanah air Dr. Sutomo mendirikan Indonesische Studie Club pada tahun 1924. Tahun itu juga Perserikatan Komunis Hindia berganti nama menjadi Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI). Lalu pada tahun 1925 Jong Islamieten Bond membentuk kepanduan Nationaal Indonesische Padvinderij (Natipij). Itulah tiga organisasi di tanah air yang mula mula menggunakan nama "Indonesia". Akhirnya nama "Indonesia" dinobatkan sebagai nama tanah air, bangsa dan bahasa kita pada Kerapatan Pemoeda-Pemoedi Indonesia tanggal 28 Oktober 1928, yang kini kita sebut Sumpah Pemuda.

Pada bulan Agustus 1939 tiga orang anggota Volksraad (Dewan Rakyat; DPR zaman Belanda), Muhammad Husni Thamrin, Wiwoho Purbohadidjojo, dan Sutardjo Kartohadikusumo, mengajukan mosi kepada Pemerintah Belanda agar nama "Indonesia" diresmikan sebagai pengganti nama "Nederlandsch-Indie". Tetapi Belanda keras kepala sehingga mosi ini ditolak mentah-mentah.

Maka kehendak Allah pun berlaku. Dengan jatuhnya tanah air kita ke tangan Jepang pada tanggal 8 Maret 1942, lenyaplah nama "Hindia Belanda" untuk selama-lamanya. Lalu pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945, atas berkat rahmat Allah Yang Mahakuasa, lahirlah Republik Indonesia.

source: bendemataram.blogsome.com

WHAT IS TOK PISIN?

0 komentar
Tok Pisin (pronounced /tɔːk pɪzɪn/ in English, locally pronounced [tokpisin]) is a creole spoken throughout Papua New Guinea; in parts of Western, Gulf, Central, Oro Province and Milne Bay Provinces the use of Tok Pisin has a shorter history, and is less universal, especially among older people. It is an official language of Papua New Guinea and the most widely used language in that country. Pidgin spoken in Papua New Guinea, hence its identification in some earlier works as New Guinea Pidgin. It is a form of Melanesian Pidgin English that was developed in the early 1800's as a result of increased travel and economic activity between the Melanesians and Europeans. It was also once called Neo-Melanesian, apparently according to the hypothesis that all English-based Melanesian pidgins developed from the same proto-pidgin. It is one of the three official languages of Papua New Guinea, along with English and Hiri Motu. Tok Pisin (literally, “talk pidgin”) is one of the Pacific pidgins that emerged during the second half of the 19th century on copra and sugarcane plantations to which labour was imported from Melanesia, Malaysia, and China. The extensive multilingualism that resulted called for a lingua franca. People who had traveled to Papua New Guinea from plantations in Samoa and Queensland, Austl., resorted to the pidgin that had developed there, as apparently did those from coastal China.
Between 5 and 6 million people use Tok Pisin to some degree, although by no means all of these speak it well. Between 1 and 2 million are exposed to it as a first language, in particular the children of parents or grandparents originally speaking different vernaculars (say, a mother from Madang and a father from Rabaul). Urban families in particular, and those of police and defence force members, often communicate between themselves in Tok Pisin, either never gaining fluency in a vernacular ("tok ples"), or learning a vernacular as a second (or third) language, after Tok Pisin (and possibly English). Perhaps 1 million people now use Tok Pisin as a primary language.
Tok Pisin is also—perhaps more commonly in English—called New Guinea Pidgin and, largely in academic contexts, Melanesian Pidgin English or Neo-Melanesian. Given that Papua New Guinean anglophones almost invariably refer to Tok Pisin as Pidgin when speaking English (and note that the published court reports of Papua New Guinea refer to it as "Pidgin": see for example Schubert v The State [1979] PNGLR 66) it may be considered something of an affectation to call it Tok Pisin, much like referring to German and French as Deutsch and français in English. However, Tok Pisin is favoured by many professional linguists to avoid spreading the misconception that Tok Pisin is still a pidgin language; although it was originally a pidgin, Tok Pisin is now considered a distinct language in its own right because it is a first language for some people and not merely a lingua franca to facilitate communication with speakers of other languages.
Nearly the same grammatical distinctions are made in other Melanesian pidgins, such as Bislama (Vanuatu). These features constitute some of the clearest evidence that pidgin systems are not necessarily simpler than those of the languages from which they derived most of their vocabularies and that influence from the languages previously spoken by those who developed the systems (substrates) is incontrovertible in these cases. Such substrate influence is evident also in the sound system of Tok Pisin, where English /f/ has been replaced by /p/ and /š/ by /s/, as in pinis ‘finish.’Tok Pisin is considered an expanded pidgin, as complex as a creole, as it is spoken in urban settings as a vernacular rather than as an occasional lingua franca. The nature and theoretical foundation of the distinction between an expanded pidgin and a creol is an issue of current debate among linguists.

Source:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/598181/Tok-Pisin
http://www.answers.com/topic/tok-pisin

BAHASA INDONESIA BUKANLAH PEMBENTUKAN DARI BAHASA PIJIN DAN KREOL

0 komentar
A. PENDAHULUAN
Bahasa Indonesia bukan merupakan bahasa Indonesia asli. Bahasa Indonesia bisa disebut dengan‘bahasa kutipan’, karena bahasa Indonesia mengadopsi dan mengutip dari bahasa-bahasa lain, baik dari bahasa luar negeri maupun bahasa daerah sendiri, dan merubahnya menjadi sebuah bahasa yang baru yang ada sampai sekarang. Bahasa Indonesia tercipta karena adanya hubungan antar bangsa dan bahasa, dan bekas negara jajahan. Bahasa Indonesia sering digolongkan kedalam istilah bahasa pijin atau kreol. Kerana belum adanya kejelasan penggolongan tentang bahasa Indonesia apakah termasuk salah satunya atau bahkan bukan merupakan kedua-duanya. Banyak para ahli yang telah menghasilkan pemikiran-pemikiran cemerlang terkait dengan konsep bahasa pijin dan kreol. Hal tersebut didasarkan pada fenomena alamiah manusia yang memiliki hasrat untuk mengembangkan diri. Aspek-aspek yang dikembangkan oleh manusia bisa bermacam-macam, baik dalam aspek kepercayaan, ekonomi, budaya, dan lain sebagainya. Proses-proses pengembangan diri tersebut tentu memiliki imbas; imbas positif dan negatif dalam kehidupan manusia itu sendiri.
Aspek kehidupan manusia yang paling rentan terhadap perubahan adalah budaya, namun terkadang perubahan dan perkembangannya terjadi tanpa sadar. Salah satu contoh konkrit perkembangan budaya yang berjalan secara alami adalah bahasa. Sebagaimana pada mulanya hanya ada satu bahasa induk, lalu dalam prosesnya, bahasa tersebut berkembang menjadi ribuan bahkan jutaan. Perkembangan bahasa tersebut merupakan hasil dari pertemuan, percampuran serta kontak yang dilakukan satu komunitas masyarakat dengan komunitas masyarakat lainnya.

B. PEMBAHASAN
Menurut Wardhaugh (1986), bahwa pijin dan kreol muncul atas dasar masyarakat yang berbeda bahasa sehingga harus menemukan sebuah sistem komunikasi. Berikut pembahasan mengenai pijin, kreol dan bahasa Indonesia.
1. Pijin
Pijin adalah bahasa yang belum mempunyai penutur asli (Holmes, 1992). Atau dengan kata lain pijin adalah sebuah bentuk bahasa kontak yang digunakan oleh orang-orang dengan latar belakang bahasa yang berbeda-beda. Sebuah pijin biasanya memiliki tatabahasa yang sangat sederhana dengan kosakata dari bahasa yang berbeda-beda (http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahasa_Pidgin). Bahasa pijin muncul dari perdagangan ataupun sebagai alat komunikasi para pekerja (Todd, 1974). Bahasa pijin muncul sebagai alat komunikasi sosial dalam hubungan ynag singkat (Cahyono, 1995:404). Holmes (1992) menggolongkan karakteristik pijin menjadi 3 yaitu:
1. Dipakai di ruang lingkup dan fungsi yang terbatas.
2. Struktur yang sederhana.
3. Pada umumnya sebagai golongan rendah dan cenderung memiliki sifat yang negatif.
Todd (1974) menggambarkan proses pijinisasi dalam beberapa fase, yaitu; Fase pertama : Terjadinya kontak bahasa antar bahasa pendatang dengan bahasa lokal. Dalam kontak bahasa, masyarakat melakukan proses penyederhanaan tata bahasa, kosakata, bahkan cara pengucapan agar lebih mudah dimengerti oleh sesama masyarakat multilingual tersebut. Kontak bahasa tersebut diiringi dengan gestures atau komunikasi non fisik (bahasa tubuh, mimik muka, dll) untuk mengkomunikasikan kebutuhan, istilah-istilah perdagangan, dll. Fase kedua : Bahasa yang telah di ’modifikasi’ atau disederhanakan tersebut digunakan secara reguler selama kontak masyarakat multilingual berlangsung. Fase ketiga : Kosakata-kosakata teknis diperluas, biasanya dengan meminjam pada bahasa yang paling dominan. Fase keempat: Penggunaan bahasa pijin secara regular dalam situasi tertentu jika terus dipertahankan hingga memiliki penutur asli, maka berpotensi untuk menjadi bahasa kreol.
2. Kreol
Menurut todd (1974) creol adalah bahasa pijin yang menjadi bahasa ibu dari speech community. Seperti bahasa normal lainya kreol memiliki penutur asli sedangkan pijin tidak (Wardhough, 1986). Kajian umum menunjukkan (khususnya yang dilakukan oleh Derek Bickerton) bahwa bahasa-bahasa kreol yang ada di dunia menunjukkan adalah kesamaan, khususnya dari segi tata bahasa yang mengarah pada teori tata bahasa universal. Bahasa Kreol ini juga dipengaruhi oleh kosakata-kosakata yang dibawa oleh para penuturnya. Bahasa Kreol berkembang karena sebab berikut : Berkumpulnya berbagai orang dari latar belakang yang berbeda, maksudnya: di suatu daerah, terjadi kontak antara penduduk asli dan pendatang yang satu sama lain berbeda bahasa. Dari sini kemudian digunakan sarana komunikasi yang terdiri dari bahasa dominan, namun terpengaruh oleh kosakata-kosakata bawaan dari orang-orang tersebut. Pijin dan kreol memiliki karakteristik yang serupa. Menurut Cahyono (1995) karakteristik itu adalah:
a) Memiliki urutan subyek-predikat-objek yang cukup kuat,
b) Memiliki pronomina yang tidak bervariasi
c) Tidak mengandung infleksi dan sedikit mengandung derivasi,
d) Banyak memakai partikel untuk membuat negative atau menentukan tense,
e) Menggunakan rangkain verba untuk mengubah makna kata utama,
f) Menggunakan pengulangan kata untuk penekanan,
g) Menggunakan konjungsi untuk mengacu ke makna kata untuk,
h) Menggunakan pronominal ketiga jamak untuk menandai frase nomina pluralis, dan
i) Menggunakan partikel pada awal kalimat untuk menandai unsur yang ditekankan.
Pada mulanya bahasa inilah yang disebut Pijin, dengan kosakata yang sangat sederhana. Namun, ketika mengalami proses kreolisasi, tata bahasanya mengalami perkembangan sehingga menjadi bahasa yang stabil dan terpisah dari bahasa induknya. Sebagian besar bahasa Kreol ini berakar dari bahasa-bahasa Indo-Eropa sebagai bahasa dasarnya. Berikut adalah bahasa-bahasa Kreol yang sudah dikenal (http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahasa_kreol) : Kreol Arab (Ki Nubi, Arab Juba, Arab Babalia), Kreol Inggris (BislamaTok Pisin, Krio, Pitcairn, Sranang Tongo, Kreol Miskito, Kreol Rama Cay), Kreol Perancis (Kreol Haiti, Kreol Louisiana, Kreol Mauritius, Seselwa), Kreol Melayu (Betawi, Melayu Ambon, Melayu Manado, Melayu Ternate, Melayu Banda, Melayu Kupang, Melayu, Larantuka), Kreol Spanyol (Chavacano, Palenquero), Kreol Portugis (Papiamento, Macao, Burgher, Kreol Tanjung Verde, Kreol India, São Tomé, Fa d'Ambo, Crioulo, Papia Kristang).

3. Bahasa Indonesia Bukanlah Termasuk Bahasa Pijin dan Kreol
Pada umumnya orang mengetahui bahwa bahasa lndonesia yang sekarang berasal dari bahasa Melayu. Istilah bahasa Melayu sendiri mengacu pada bahasa Melayu Riau, yaitu bahasa Melayu yang diajarkan di sekolah-sekolah sebelum Perang Dunia II berkecamuk. Beberapa bahasa daerah juga memberikan sumbangan kepada bahasa Indonesia, seperti bahasa Jawa, Sunda, dan lain-lain. Bahkan, bahasa Indonesia juga mendapat sumbangan dari bahasa Barat. Penerbitan buku di Leiden dengan judul European Loan Words in Indonesian: A Checklist of Words of European Origin in Bahasa Indonesia and Traditional Malay tahun 1983 mengingatkan tentang sumbangan bahasa-bahasa Barat kepada bahasa Indonesia.
Bahasa Indonesia diresmikan pada kemerdekaan Indonesia tahun 1945. Bahasa Indonesia merupakan bahasa dinamis yang hingga sekarang terus menghasilkan kata-kata baru, baik melalui penciptaan, maupun penyerapan dari bahasa daerah dan asing. Bahasa Indonesia adalah dialek baku dari bahasa Melayu yang pokoknya dari bahasa Melayu Riau sebagaimana diungkapkan oleh Ki Hajar Dewantara dalam Kongres Bahasa Indonesia I tahun 1939 di Solo, Jawa Tengah, "jang dinamakan 'Bahasa Indonesia' jaitoe bahasa Melajoe jang soenggoehpoen pokoknja berasal dari 'Melajoe Riaoe', akan tetapi jang soedah ditambah, dioebah ataoe dikoerangi menoeroet keperloean zaman dan alam baharoe, hingga bahasa itoe laloe moedah dipakai oleh rakjat di seloeroeh Indonesia; pembaharoean bahasa Melajoe hingga menjadi bahasa Indonesia itoe haroes dilakoekan oleh kaoem ahli jang beralam baharoe, ialah alam kebangsaan Indonesia". atau sebagaimana diungkapkan dalam Kongres Bahasa Indonesia II 1954 di Medan, Sumatra Utara, "...bahwa asal bahasa Indonesia ialah bahasa Melaju. Dasar bahasa Indonesia ialah bahasa Melaju jang disesuaikan dengan pertumbuhannja dalam masjarakat Indonesia". Secara sejarah, bahasa Indonesia merupakan salah satu dialek temporal dari bahasa Melayu yang struktur maupun khazanahnya sebagian besar masih sama atau mirip dengan dialek-dialek temporal terdahulu seperti bahasa Melayu Klasik dan bahasa Melayu Kuno. Secara sosiologis, bolehlah kita katakan bahwa bahasa Indonesia baru dianggap "lahir" atau diterima keberadaannya pada tanggal 28 Oktober 1928. Secara yuridis, baru tanggal 18 Agustus 1945 bahasa Indonesia secara resmi diakui keberadaannya. Bila kita mengikuti pemikiran beberapa sarjana Belanda, terlihat bahwa yang dianggap bahasa Melayu baku ialah bahasa yang banyak dikembangkan oleh guru-guru Melayu, terutama yang bertugas di Balai Pustaka. Profesor A. Teeuw pernah menulis: One can go further and say that it was this very group of Minangkabau school teachers at Balai Pustaka who made a significant contribution to the standardization of Malay which is often called Balai Pustaka Malay; it is the basis from which present-day Bahasa Indonesia is developed. Walaupun Profesor Teeuw tidak menggunakan istilah bahasa Melayu Riau, namun yang dimaksud dengan istilah bahasa Melayu Balai Pustaka itu pada dasarnya adalah bahasa Melayu Riau dalam pengertian kita di atas. Sarjana Belanda lain, Profesor G. W. J. Drewes, yang pernah bertugas di Balai Pustaka juga menekankan pentingnya Balai Pustaka dalam hubungannya dengan pembakuan bahasa. Menurut Drewes, bahasa manuskrip yang dikirimkan oleh Balai Pustaka sering diperbaiki oleh Engku-engku Balai Pustaka dan para pengarang. Pengirim hendaknya tidak merasa tersinggung, bahkan harus berterima kasih atas perbaikan-perbaikan itu (Drewes, 1981: 102–103). Bahasa Indonesia juga memiliki kedudukan yang sangat penting seperti yang tercantum dalam:
 Ikrar ketiga Sumpah Pemuda 1928 dengan bunyi, ”Kami putra dan putri Indonesia menjunjung bahasa persatuan, bahasa Indonesia.
 Undang-Undang Dasar RI 1945 Bab XV (Bendera, Bahasa, dan Lambang Negara, serta Lagu Kebangsaan) Pasal 36 menyatakan bahwa ”Bahasa Negara ialah Bahasa Indonesia”.
Dari Kedua hal tersebut, maka kedudukan bahasa Indonesia sebagai:
 Bahasa kebangsaan, kedudukannya berada di atas bahasa-bahasa daerah.
 Bahasa negara (bahasa resmi Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia).

C. KESIMPULAN
Jadi jelaslah jika dibandingkan dengan bahasa pijin, bahasa Indonesia memiliki kedudukan bahasa yang resmi, dan Bahasa Indonesia tidak terjadi dari pengumpulan bahasa-bahasa pijin yang nantinya akan berubah menjadi bahasa kreol. Tapi bahasa Indonesia berasal dari bahasa melayu Riau yang struktur maupun khazanahnya sebagian besar masih sama atau mirip dengan dialek-dialek temporal terdahulu seperti bahasa Melayu Klasik dan bahasa Melayu Kuno yang telah tercipta sebelum perang Dunia II dan telah digunakan dalam bahasa buku-buku balai pustaka serta digunakan dalam pergaulan masyarakat sosial.


DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Cahyono, Bambang Yudi. 1995. Kristal-Kristal Ilmu Bahasa. Surabaya: Airlangga University Press.
Drewes G. W. J. 1981. Balai Pustaka and its Antecedents in Philips, N., Anwar, K.(EDs.), Papers on Indonesia Languages and Literatures. London: Indonesian Etymological Project.
Godadi, INC. 2001. “Kreol dan Pijin” Diperoleh pada tanggal 11 dan 12 September 2009 dari http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/kreol/pijin
Holmes, Janet. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolnguistics. London: Longman Group Limited.
Todd, Loreto. 1974. Pidgins and Creols. London: Routledge & Kegan Ltd.
Wardhaugh, Ronals. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolnguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Followers

 

sUBanDoWo Dot BlOgsPot dOt coM. Copyright 2011 All Rights Reserved