THE USE OF NGGAHI KORE:A SURVEY OF STATUS, DOMAINAND FUNCTIONS

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the discussion on the background of the study, statement of the problems, research goals, significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study and operational definitions.

1.1.            Background of Study

Language belongs to the nature of human being. Language is a crucial thing that cannot be separated from people in communicating with others. Clark and Clark (1997) agree that language is a fundamental instrument of communication. This means that language is used as a tool in order to interact with other people in the societal life. There are many kinds of language in the world carried in different ways depending on where they live or many other factors. Moreover, Spolsky (1998) proposes a definition about language. He describes that language is not only used to express the meaning of the thought of speaker, but also to establish and to maintain the social relationship. People commonly use more than one language in daily life to maintain or build communication or for any other reasons in a society where they live.         

Furthermore, Indonesia is an archipelago that has thousand islands enriched by languages. Indonesian people use different languages in every island. They have their own language and they use more than one language. Generally, Indonesian tends to interact in two languages; those are local language and national language (Indonesian). Indeed, many countries in this world are not completely monolingual. This means that Indonesia is bilingual and multilingual. So does the language in Bima regency, especially in Sanggar district.

In this study, the writer will focus on the use of Nggahi Kore that still exists in Sanggar district, Bima regency. This is one of the languages used by people who live at the foot of Tambora Mountain in Sumbawa Island beside Bima language and Bahasa Indonesia. Nggahi Kore in the current time is used by people in some sub-districts such as Taloko, Boro and Piong dominantly and some in Kore as the result of mix marriage.

Nggahi Kore is spoken language used by most of people who live in those four sub-districts. It is employed in several aspects of their life such as daily interaction, religion, rituals and traditional activities. Among their community, Nggahi Kore for many times used for some specific purposes, such as maintaining the sacred of traditional ceremony and to keep a secret from another group.

Triggered by this fact, this study will try to show some aspects like the status of Nggahi Kore both in linguistic and social, the domains that influence its use and the functions served by this language. This effort is developed for the sake of preserving and maintaining Nggahi Kore as one of the local language that serve as the identity of Sanggar district.

Then the focus area of this study would merely on Taloko and Piong Sub-district since in fact, the speakers of Nggahi Kore in these two sub-districts are found to have more speakers compare to other areas. In addition, the speakers in this area are more active and expressive in using this language (Nggahi Kore)

1.3.  Statement of Problem  

Based on the background of study above, the problems of the study are as follows

1.        What is the linguistic status of Nggahi Kore?

2.        What is the social status of Nggahi Kore?

3.        In what domain(s) is Nggahi Kore language used?

4.        What social functions does Nggahi Kore serve?

5.        What discourse function does Nggahi Kore serve?

    

1.4.   Research Goals

In accordance with the research problems formulated above, this study aims at;

1.      Identifying what the linguistic status of Nggahi Kore is.

2.      Identifying what the social status of Nggahi Kore is

3.      Describing various domain of the use of Nggahi Kore

4.      Determining the social functions of Nggahi Kore

5.      Determining the discourse functions of Nggahi Kore

1.4.    Significance of the Study

The results of the study are expected to give beneficial information dealing with the use of Nggahi Kore and they should be worthwhile not only for the researcher but also for the subject of research. This study has both theoretical and practical necessities. This study contains the following significances.

Theoretically, the result of this study is not only for the users of nggahi Kore to use and to develop their native language in accordance with the status, domain and the proper functions of their language. This study is also expected to encourage other researchers to be more interested in observing and investigating deeply about the language use especially in identifying all linguistic or non-linguistic aspects related to Nggahi Kore, and the result of this study will be a reference for other local language research in future.

Practically, this study might have practical implication for the speakers of Nggahi Kore who lives in Sanggar district, especially in Taloko and Piong village to be able to use Nggahi Kore more appropriately to their status, domain and functions of that language. To the youth of Nggahi Kore, it could be the base concept and it is so much helpful in deepening their knowledge about their own native language especially how to preserve Nggahi Kore to exist in coloring large community as well as Bahasa Indonesia as national language. To the writer herself, it is one of the great ways to enrich and enlarge her horizon about language phenomenon especially in Nggahi Kore.

1.5.  Scope of the Study

The scope of the study falls into the subject and the object that would be investigated.The subjects of this study are speakers of Nggahi Kore especially those who live at Taloko and Piong village, subdistrict of Sanggar, Bima regency. The term object is addressed merely to the main focus of this study, thus the use of Nggahi Kore to determine the status, domain, and functions of ‘Nggahi Kore’ are the object limitation of this study.

1.6. Operational Definitions

1.      Nggahi Kore

Nggahi Kore is a spoken language mostly used by people who live in Taloko, Piong and Boro in Sanggar district to interact, to deliver their massage, desire, feelings, and also needs dominantly in previous time.

2.      Linguistic status

In this study, linguistic status is the forms in the language such as lexical and grammatical of Nggahi Kore. Since this language is used by the speakers in their contact to another community who employ Bima Language, the form of language may be influenced. This language perhaps contains the lexical of Nggahi Kore, however the syntax aspect adopts the Bima Language such as its basic construction.

3.      Social status

Social status, also called status,  the relative rank that an individual holds, with attendant rights, duties, and lifestyle, in a social hierarchy based upon honour or prestige (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_status). Referring to language, the status is meant the rank or the prestige of a certain language compare to other languages. Thus, in this study the social status of Nggahi Kore is intended to reveal the rank or prestige of this language among the existence of Bahasa Indonesia and Bima language.

4.      Domain

Romaine (2000:44) defines domain as “….an abstraction which refers to a sphere of activity representing a combination of specific times, settings, and role relationships”. In almost similar way, domain, according to Adams et.al (2012:100) is “…regarded as institutional contexts in which one language is more likely to be appropriate than another and are to be seen as constellations of other factors such as topic, location and participants”. From the above definitions, a domain can be understood as the involvement of time, setting and participants that determine the use of certain language. A domain can be considered as a group of related speech situations include family, religion, education, employment, and friendship. Each domain hasdistinctive, domain-specific factors: addressee, setting, and topic. For example, family members are obviously the main addressees in the family domain, the home location would be the setting and everyday family matters would be the topics.

5.      Social function

The social functioncan be defined “…as the ways in which language spoken by a group of people is related to that group’s social position and organization” (Barker, 1945:228).Thus, in this study the social function is addressed to the Nggahi Kore speakers’ status or position among other speaker communities in Sanggar district.

6.      Discourse function

This term refers to how a particular expression is used on a particular occasion. The discourse function of a sentence depends on the context, for example Can you give me a call? might be a command or a question. Discourse functions include commands, statements and questions

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Related studies

Not many studies have been found to explore the existence of the Nggahi Kore. Some studies were focus on classifying the dialects of Nggahi Mbojo in which Nggahi Kore is argued to be one of the dialects (Kore/Sanggar Dialect) (Akhmad 1998 in Djohan 2002, Mahsun, 2006).  The only study that focus on Nggahi Kore has been done by Djohan (2002) through her study a descriptive study on Bimanese terms of address to personal names in Sanggar dialect.

Djohan (2002) through this study explored the personal names address form of people in Sanggar dialect. As has been believed that, Bimanese in general, show a unique way in expressing the address form to each other. The younger people for instance, will call the older person whose name “Jamaluddin” as “Jemo” (from fisrt syllable “Jama”) or “Ledo” (from the last Syllable “Luddin”) (Djohan, 2002: 2) to express their politeness. Thus, the focus of this study was on the phonological change of people’s name in Sanggar district.

One of the findings of this study is that, the vowel change of the personal names address form is very much influence by Gender in which for the female, the vowel change existed to be 10 vowels which is extracted into 8 patterns while for the male, it has 16 vowel change with 6 patterns of vowel change. For the two genders (male and female), they share 5 similar vowels change and 2 vowel change patterns.

Another study conducted by Mahsun (2006) is actually not directly focusing on the Nggahi Kore, instead this study was merely explored the variants of Bimanese/ Bahasa Bima (BB) through the dialectological approach. In this study, he focused on 25 research locations in both Bima and Dompu regency covering Kanca, Ncandi, Risa, Ntonggu, Laju, Sambori, Bajo, Sari, Kolo, Mbawa, Sangiang, Taloko, Karamabura, Adu, Bara, Riwo, Soro, Mbuju, Soriutu, Pekat, Oko, Kandai Dua, Renda, Rasana’e and Tarlawi. He concluded that Nggahi Kore is one of the dialect of Bahasa Bima that is spoken in Taloko that he called as Dialek Kore (Kore Dialect).

From the above two studies, none of them deeply explored the status, domain and function of Nggahi Kore as this study will focus on. The study conducted by Mahsun (2006) for example, since it focused on the linguistics aspect, this study is still limit on the information of its use in the real communication between the speakers of Nggahi Kore.

2.2 Theoretical Concept

2.2.1 The Nature of Language

Whenever we write any concept human language, we always start by clarifying what language is. To answer this, such as to define the language definition is unfinished work for linguists. It is caused by differences of linguists’ view in defining it.

Langacker (1972) defines language as a set of principles relating meanings and phonetic sequences. He further argues that it is a means of communication between human being which contains vocal sounds to express things, event, and processes in human communication. According to Williams (1993) Language can generally be understood as a system for human to express thoughts and feelings through sound or conventional symbols. He argues that: “language is human communication of knowledge, ideas, feeling by using of sound symbols, other say language as a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication” (91). In almost similar way, Finnochiaro in Alwasilah (1985) defined language as the vocal symbol for people to interact by previously acquired the system of culture where the language employed.

The other linguists argue that language is communication by sounds, i.e., thought, the organ of speech and hearing among human being of certain group of community, using vocal symbols possessing arbitrary, conventional meanings. (Mario Pei in Alwasilah, 1985).

From the all definitions above, it shows that language has almost the same point that is used means of communication that consists of certain sound system to express feelings and/or idea. However, different linguists show this in different ways.

2.2.2 Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Duran (1994) suggested that definition of bilingualism goes to the proficiency or ability of persons in using two languages almost in the similar level (they able to use the second language almost as good as the first language) and by this fact, they become native-like. However, since the term “almost” is used to illustrate the first and the second language ability, it obviously means that the ability of those two languages will never appear in exactly the same level (acquiring L2 as best as L1) as has been expressed by Wardaugh (2006:96) “People who are bilingual or multilingual do not necessarily have exactly the
same abilities in the languages (or varieties)…”. In this case, the notion of “ability” falls into many aspects not only in terms of grammatical proficiency since the most important is that the ability to apply it socially. Thus to achieve a social competence, for the sake of obtaining a good bilingualism proficiency, the bilingual or multilingual people should be able to recognize who uses what, when and for what it (the language) is used, yet they could respond it through employing a relevant language (Wardaugh, 2006:96).

The idea of bilingual/bilingualism and multilingual/multilingualism sometimes giving a puzzle clear cut for students. However, as has been broadly believed that the salient different between the two terms bilingual/bilingualism and multilingual/multilingualism fall into the ability and the person in which, since the bilingualism/multilingualism is understood as the ability or the proficiency, the bilingual/multilingual is then recognized as the person who possess such ability. Spolsky (1998) argues that the term bilingual refers to a person with an ability in using more than one languages in many domains. From such definition, we could argue that the term multilingual is addressed to those people who are able to speak more than two languages.

From the above description, in short, we could conclude that the term bilingualism refers to someone who is able to communicate by using two languages even though the proficiency of using and mastering those languages is not the same as native speakers. Meanwhile, multilingualism term is dealing with the ability of speaking several languages and contexts. In this study, bilingualism and multilingualism are dealing with the ability to use the Nggahi Kore at Piong Village which is the most of the people there are use the Bima Language for their daily activities.

2.2.3 Language use

            Gumperz cited in Wardaugh (2006) mentions that sociolinguistics is scientific field that focuses on effort to find a correlation between social structure and the structures of language and to find the changes that occur. Since sociolinguistic is study of relationship of language and social structure, it is clear that interethnic and language use can be studied in this sub-field of sociolinguistic. In this study, the writer focuses on Hymes theory (1974) which states that there are eight factors that affect language use. Those factors are setting and scene, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, or norms of interaction norms of interpretation, and genre. These factors are acronymous as SPEAKING.

Setting and Scene, as Hymes (1974: 55) argues that”..refers to the time and place of a speech act and, in general, to the physical circumstances”.  In the use of the language, the term setting covers both setting of place and setting of time. Thus, place and time when the language chosen determines the use of language itself. In example a child calls his father who is a teacher at home in family time “father” (or commonly dad), then at school in school hour, it suddenly turned into “teacher”. Scene is psychological setting. The father would be playful or unserious at home, but becomes or commemorative at school.

Furthermore, participants in language use mean people who become participants in the conversation or whom the speaker is talking with. Linguists distinguish participant into two; speakers and hearers. These are the terms that differently expressed by Hymes (1962:25 in Tripp, 1964:87) as “sender” and “receiver. In a given situation of talking, it is not always consisting of the primary addressee (Tripp, 1964). Sometimes the father overhears when a mother scolding her child. In this case, father is not serving as the primary addressee as the child does.

The term “Ends” means the result need to accomplish in conversation or the goal for speaking. Hymes (1974) called it purposes, goal, and outcome. The mother for instance, may tell the children for giving instruction to the children to be a better person, while the aspect of “Act sequences” is understood as the stages or steps in communication or interaction. Hymes (1974) called it a form and order of the event.

According to Hymes (1974), the term “Key” is clues establishing tone, manner, or spirit in communication. Keys are showing the desire. The way to show its desire is practically different based on the situation (formal, informal, colloquial).Almost closely related to this (key) aspect, “Instrumentalities”forms are used to show different forms and styles of speech. A teacher could use more than one dialect with variety of styles such as casual, elegance or elegant when teaching in the classroom.

            Norms of interaction or Norms of interpretation can generally be understood as the norms applied in communication. Social rules that exist in communicating will certainly affect the language use and the last, the aspect of Genre, is addressed to the kind of speech act or event. It influences a type of a particular word using in communication. It will obviously give an impact to the use of the language. In this case (the new place) someone will use the language to survive. Thus, people need to learn new area. This is commonly called as defense mechanism.

In short, language use could not be separated with setting and participants who speaker talks with, different setting and participants affect the language use. When the language used by majority resident is different, speaker consciously or unconsciously will switch the language.

2.2.4 Language Status

Status of language may be higher, lower, or equal position, particularly with regard to prestige and power. Speech varieties may have different statuses in a speech community. For example, a variety which has limited use in markets and for very informal situations would have a low status whereas another variety which is used in government,education,administration, etc., would have a high status.The status of a language can at least be seen from two aspects; socially and linguistically as discussed below.

2.2.4.1 Social Status

Social status or class is an important determinant for the status of the language. The high or low status shared by certain language is very much related to its use as predominant tools of communication in social life or domains. The language is considered to share a high status or high prestige language when it is considered important and yet spoken dominantly such as in market or office (government). Balinese language for instance, as reported by Yusra (2012) obtained its High status during the reign of Balinese Kingdom in Lombok because of its domination in politics and demographic while at the same time, since Basa Sasak had no power in politics and economic, it is then considered to have a low status.

In line with the case of Basa Sasak, the Romani (Roma language) in Europe also treated as a low prestige language since this language does not occupy or share the strategic position both economically and politically. For the Romanian itself, they are isolated,”…politically, economically and culturally marginalized, ethnically stigmatized, discriminated against and persecuted, the Roma could only survive in small groups” (Brun and Wolff, 2003:195). For these reasons, the Romanian fails to obtain and keep the economic and politic power. Linguistically, this language does not share a codified standard. This language, is merely employed in limited domain such home or group for the sake of maintaining the intimacy. Yet, mostly Romani speakers become bi/multilingual and speak the language use by the majority populations (Brun and Wolff, 2003).

After all, as Brun and Wolff (2003) concluded that, the very little prestige and the inferiority of Romania are strongly triggered by the limitations and the disappear of the standard and written variety they experienced.

The similar case is also shown by the Quechua, one of the languages in Peru, that experienced the low prestige caused by the its inability to obtain the politic and economic power as the result of the Spanish domination in many domains such as school and mostly formal environments. Quechua language, similarly to the Romani discussed above, is dominantly found to be used in the rural areas as the concentrations of the speakers are in this area (Molina, 1997:36-37).

In short, the use of the language in the social environment could be an indication toward the status it shares. The more the language serves as the means of strategic and important domains the higher the status they have. In other words, this language must belong to the High prestige language. On the other hands, the social limitation of the language use could be a reflection of the low status of the language.

2.2.4.2 Linguistic status

            Language is dynamic in respect of its change. Since the contact of the speakers of different languages are inevitable, the change of language is then undeniable. Having so, mostly languages is universally changed (Coulmas,1998). The fact is that language shares a couple basic features in which first, it always changes structurally covering the phonology, grammar, discourse style, semantics, and vocabulary aspects and second, in a given time and place, the change is different (57). In the case of language contact between English and Spanish in US for example, resulting to the phenomenon of bilingualism in which consequently, the code-switching, loanwords and grammatical patterns assimilations is high (58). In common phenomenon, the contact of languages (two or more) could lead to the existence of new language as the case of pidgins and creoles (Myerhoff, 2006:247)“…with vocabulary mainly derived from the socially dominant language, but with a drastically simplified grammar” (Coulmas,1998:58)

Triggered by such fact, an effort of discovering the linguistic status of language can be determined from the linguistic aspect they share involving lexical forms, phonology, morphology and syntax. These aspects have been used by Yusra (2012) in discovering the linguistic status shared by Ampenan Vernacular Language (AVL). In respect of the lexical for instance, he examined the lexical sources of the AVL by comparing list of words proposed by Swadesh (1972 [1951]) and Teeuws (1951) with the vocabularies of AVL. The result is that, the AVL vocabularies are dominantly adopted from Malay language with the highest percentage (41.29%) followed by the two highest percentages colloquial Arabic (18.38%) and Basa Sasak (9.31%) (Yusra, 2012:175).

Thus, triggered by such fact, he argued that Ampenan people could claim to have their own language, unfortunately the strong evidence shows it is as the variant of the Malay language. Obviously, for stronger claim, he furthermore examined the other aspects such as phonology, morphology and syntax.

           

2.2.5 Language domain                                                                                            

As social creatures, humans do interaction in various domains. Domain itself can be understood as “…an abstraction which refers to a sphere of activity representing a combination of specific times, settings, and role relationships” that could be used as the determiners of the language use (Romaine, 2000:44). Thus each domain such as home, friendship or religion domain requires a different language as communication tool.

People, consciously or unconsciously, tend to speak differently depending on where and what situation they are interacting. Long time ago, Quecha language for instance (one of languages spoken in Peru) is used by the rural community at home/family domain while Spanish is used dominantly for everything outside those (home/family) domain (Romaine, 2000). The similar situation can also be found in many places in Indonesia such Mataram in Lombok. For the school (university)/ education domain, the dominant language used is Bahasa Indonesia while the local languages such as Sasak, Bima or Sumbawa is employed at home/family domain.

Holmes (1992:2) proposes three important social factors in determining the language choice namely participants, setting and topic. However, according to Scotton, (2006) there are four influencing factors that can override the domain as a predictor: 1) who the participants are, including what language varieties they are able to speak well. 2) what topic they talk about, 3) negotiation interactional position, for example a child tends to select the language use according to her play partner, 4) time change, a domains’ language changes, for instance, a family that previously use their first/native language as a means of communication at home domain, could change it into the deserve pattern of language during the time. In other words, the change of the time affects the use of the language.

In relation to this study, the appearance of the domain as the predictor of the language employed is also found. Nggahi Kore is commonly used in building the social relationship between the certain groups. It will be extensively used for home domain between the family members.

In a different case such as when discussing the religion, the Bima Language will be used. This change can also be found when the addressee is a prominent figure.

2.2.6. Functions of Language

It does not need to be debated that language plays very important roles in human life. Through the language we can share and communicate our idea and feeling to another. According to Williams (1993), there are two primary functions of language that is, communication and expression in which these functions are argued to be the most basic functions used by human in communicating and informing others.

Another view about function was also stated by Sapir (cited in Mahyuni, 2006), who argues that one of the basic functions of language is for expressing human knowledge and culture. It is used as a specific function among special interest of groups, and a rapport function at social gathering such as parties and conventions. Expression function can be expressed orally and in written form.

A lot of what we say is for a specific purpose. Whether we are apologizing, expressing a wish or asking permission, we use language in order to fulfill that purpose. Each purpose can be known as a language function. Savignon (1983: 13)describes a language function as “the use to which language is put, the purpose of an utterance rather than the particular grammatical form an utterance takes”. If we think about a function of language as one that serves a purpose we can see that much of what we see can be considered to be functional. For example; arriving at the dinner party we may introduce ourselves, thank the host and ask where to put our coats. During the dinner we may congratulate someone on a recent accomplishment, ask advice, express affection and compliment the host on the meal. Each of these individual utterances are considered functions of language.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

2.3.1 Language and society 

Language is one of the most typical characteristics of human that distinguishes him or her from other creation. The science that studies the essence characteristic of the language belongs to linguistics. It investigates the element of language and the relationship among the interconnection among human being. By using language, the interaction is communicative. The speaker can express everything s/he wants to. However, s/he has to see who the addressee in the society. In addition, the differences of social and culture aspect of place will affect the use of communicative language in the society.

Language as a means of communication has very important roles in people’s daily life. Many factors influence the use of language and one of them is social factor. According to Holmes (1992:12), some factors like whom you are talking to (participant), where they are speaking (setting/social context of interaction), why they are talking (function) and what they are talking about (topic),take a crucial role for language choice in certain speech community. One of the language varieties is the use of code. It sometimes considered to be more neutral term than the others. Some people like to communicate using one code of language which is mixed with another language.

Human language is a system. It is enormously complex. A growing up child can learn his/her native language since the age of six and seven (Finnochiaro, 1974). He/she learns the intricate system or the grammar of the language by conjoining sentence, asking question, selecting appropriate pronouns, negative sentence, using the syntactic, phonology, and morphology (Rodman, 1974).

Language is a part of culture aspects that always associated with groups of individual since it believed to be human made-originally-created through the process of socialization. Having so, language never belongs to a single individual and an individual acquires his/her language from the group with whom he/she lives (Shapiro, 1956).This is to say that language is integral with or inseparable from the society as it is the only means of communication of the members in their daily interaction (Nababan, 1991).

There are two fundamental aspects contained in the term of society, firstly; the member of society lives and cooperates in group. And secondly; the members and the groups live together because of the set of laws and tradition or behavior they already shared in common (Nababan, 1991).

Fairclough (1989) expressed that there is a close relation between the language and the society that can be seen from the internal relationship of language to the society. He argues that “linguistic phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort, and social phenomena are (in part) linguistic phenomena” (23). In the first case, in which the linguistic phenomena are considered to be the social phenomena, It can be shown in the way how people express their speaking or reading in a social environment that would raise a social effect such as maintaining the relationship among group members of community or even in the smaller domain such as family.

On the other hand, social phenomena are argued to be the partial of the linguistic phenomena since not all of the languages used are the expression of social processes and practices. As he argues that, it is merely a part of them (process and practice). A simple example is shown by the way how people used the term such as democracy, nationalization, imperialism or socialism in disputing the politic. Obviously, according to Fairclough (1989), they are not necessarily a fully politic; indeed it is parts of politics.

Wardaugh (2006) expressed possible relationships between language and society. First, social structure influences the linguistic structure as the case of different way or manner shown by children in speaking compared to adult. In addition, the linguistic structure of language variety for instance, can be determined by ethnic origin and gender or social requirements.

Second, linguistic structure could determine social structure and third, language and society influence each other which means that there is a constant relationship between language and social behavior (Dittmar, 1976 in Wardaugh, 2006:10).

2.3.2 Diglossia

Diglossia is a situation in which two or more languages (or varieties of the same language) in a speech community are allocated to different social function and contexts (Holmes, 1992). In almost similar way Wardaugh (2006:89) argues that “A diglossic situation exists in a society when it has two distinct codes which show clear functional separation; that is, one code is employed in one set of
circumstances and the other in an entirely different set”.

A certain language in a certain society shares two main functions such as high (H) and low (L) functions. High (H) function has bigger level or prestige than L, and is considered superior. There is a literary heritage in H, but not in L. There are different circumstances of acquisition; children learn L at home, and H in school. The H variety is standardized, with a tradition of grammatical study and established norms and ethnography. The grammar of H variety is more complex, more highly infected. H and L varieties share their bulk of their vocabularies, but there is some complementary distribution of terms. The phonology of H and L is a single complex system (Holmes, 1992).

Claire (2008) argues that diglossia involved two varieties of a linguistic system used in a speech community: a formal variety, termed H (high), and vernacular of popular form, termed L (low). Each speech in H to informal conversation with friends in L variety. The formal type of speech has much higher prestige as well, often associated with its religious functions and with a literary and historical heritage. The H variety is standardized, often internationally, and relatively stable.

Romaine (1994) states that, often each language or variety in a multilingual community serves a specialized function and is used for particular purposes. This situation is known as ‘Diglossia’. An example can be taken from Arabic-speaking countries such as Egypt in which the language used at home may be a local version of Arabic. The standard language is used for ‘high’ function such as giving a lecture, reading, etc, while the home variety is reserved for ‘low’ functions such as interacting friends at home. Some other languages such as Swiss German, Haitian (French and Creole), and Greek are reported to show the major characteristics of the diglossic phenomenon (Ferguson, 1959 in Wardaugh, 2006).

The H and L varieties differ in many aspects such as grammar, phonology, and vocabulary. The degree of difference between the two varieties rely much on the given environment or place where it is used. In respect of the morphological, the standard German for instance, that serves as the high variety is reported to have more complicated forms. Such variety uses more case markers to noun and verb compared to Swiss German which is treated as Low variety. Another High (H) variety such as Haiti are also reported to have more complicated number and gender markers on its noun compare to the Low (L) variety (Holmes, 1992:33).

In the case of its vocabulary, as Holmes (1992:32) reported that, the H variety is recognized to have more technical and formal terms such as the use of term “perused” as a high variety and “read” as the Low variety 

From the above discussion, it can be finally concluded that diglossia is the use of two or more languages based on the certain circumstances. In regard to the Nggahi Kore as this study concerns on, it shows the characteristics of the diglossic phenomenon where in some context the H (high) and L (low) variety are used in the social interactions.

2.3.3 Language maintenance, Shift, and attrition 

Generally, in a simple definition, language maintenance could be understood as an effort of the speakers of the language to preserve their language from the threatening of being shift or lost. The common reason for maintaining the language deals with the identity that the language denotes. Thus, “where language is considered an important symbol of a minority groups’ identity, for example, the language is likely to be maintained longer” (Holmes, 1992:71). Since the Polish is considered important by the polish people in the migration place for instance, this language is then maintained for some generations. A similar reason was also used to maintain the Greek in Australia, New Zealand and America by Greek migrants (Holmes, 1992).

In addition, for many migrants, the frequency of contact to the homeland could be another valuable factor that contributes to the language maintenance. The migration of the new homeland people is argued to contribute to the new linguistic input. One way of maintaining the contact, they consciously turn home to take up family and live in the community where they live as the migrants. The Greek girls for instance, marry the Greek husband and live in their community to maintain the contact.

According to Holmes (1992), the successfulness of the language maintenance can be determined by at least three factors; the patterns of language use, demographic factors and the attitudes toward the minority language. For this third point, the notion is similar as the initial discussion above. For the patterns of language use, the maintenance of the language can be affected by the domains where the languages used. The more the domains involved the use of the language, the better the maintenance of the language will be (Holmes, 1992). The demographic factor is mainly addressed to the aspect of isolation of certain language from the majority or dominant language.

There are many reasons for language attrition. Most studies of language shift have looked at a community’s transition to the new language. The classic pattern is that a community that was one monolingual becomes transitional bilingual as a stage on the way to the eventual extinction of its regional language. Thus, language shift involves bilingualism (often with diagnosis) as a stage on the way to monolinguals in a new language, bilingualism, of course, need not imply that one of that language are going to be lost.

Another type of study focused more specific on what happens to the language that is undergoing attrition and may die out as a consequence of language shift. The external factors that influence the existence of the language and always involved in the study of language maintenance, shift and death are numerical strength.

Language shift is entirely extra structural since the linguistics structure of two languages in contact does not determine which language fields its function to the other. Language shift depends upon the social value and the prestige of the language involved (Weinreich 1953, in Fishman 1966). Thus, the language that has no value in the aspect of economic and politic will be easier to be shifted into another language.

The shift is commonly experienced by the minority language as the result of the inability of the speakers to survive using their native language caused by the domination of the predominant language that has more power in politics and/or economic. A classic example is the shift of the migrant language such as Vietnamese, Italian or Gujerati into English (Holmes. 1992:56). According to her, language shift commonly takes more than two generations in which commonly the third generation becomes a monolingual of the country where they live.

The economical factor takes a crucial role in the language shift. Since the migrant needs a job, the ability of using the predominant language is a must. Thus, in this case, there is a tendency for the migrant community to treat the country-host language, English for instance, as a good way in getting a better job.

The political factors can be seen from the case of the Hungarian shifted to the German as the result of the limitation of the Hungarian to be use in formal situation such as schools or official transactions (Holmes, 1992).

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

3.1. Research Design

The research design used in this study is qualitative. This research is the study of social phenomenon, namely, the social phenomenon of language use. Dealing with qualitative research, Berg (2004:7) says that qualitative research comes to answer questions by examining some various social settings and individuals who inhabit in the setting. In this case, conversation occurring naturally in (social interaction) society. This study is conducted at Sanggar district, Bima regency. With basic considerations follows. First, Taloko and Piong, two remote communities that still uses Nggahi Kore (Kore language) as a tool of communication in their social interaction. Second, Taloko and Piong people are native speakers of Nggahi Kore. And therefore the writer applies descriptive method to analyze the data found. By using this method, the data are not only collected in written expressions but also in spoken language.

3.2.  Population and Sample

3.2.1. Population

Population is “a number of people, a set of events or place that have the same characteristics” (Hadi, 1994). Therefore, the population of this study is those who speak Nggahi Kore who live at Taloko and Piong Villages. It is one of the villages in Sanggar district which is located at the foot of Tambora Mountain and populated by approximately 553 families (BPS Kab Bima, 2015)

3.2.2. Sample

The sample of this study is drawn from the accessible population. Simple random sampling is used to avoid bias of the study. The total number of the accessible population is 533 families. The sample of this study consists of 45 subjects which all of them are adults. The consideration of taking the adult is triggered by the fact that only those who are upper than 35-year-old who can understand the language and only those who are upper than 45 who can use it better since 35 years old people can understand it but unable to actively use it. The number (45) of sample is obtained from the consideration of taking 20% of the whole population. While choosing of the young and adult speakers are intended to cover all generations of the speakers.

3.4.  Data Collection Procedure                     

Data are collected using some techniques such as recording, note-taking, observation and interview technique. In process, the writer is actively involved to communicate with the data providers both with people as the live subjects and also with the language documents provided by identifying and classifying the words relating to Nggahi Kore that are needed in this study. The brief overviews of the techniques are briefly described below:

a.      Recording

           Recording aims at documenting the oral data so that it can later be processed. The subjects of the study will be asked to bring the audio-recorder to record the all conversations that they will involve in. It means that, the languages that they will use perhaps involve Nggahi Kore, Bahasa or Bima Language.

b.      Note-taking

           This technique is considered as the most effective way to collect the data for such study since it is likely a simple, easy and measurable technique. By noting or listing the data, the writer will meet the local people of Sanggar district especially in Taloko and Piong Village and take note to the conversation happen between them. Those conversations will be classified before further analysis. The note taking is also use by the writer to write the name of the participants who are involved in the conversation.

c.       Observation

           The observation aims at collecting the data of linguistic situation in Taloko and Piong Village. This point pertained to people’s behavior in using language as well as the social norms of speech community. The result of observation contributes to support the interpretation of recorded data as language use is inseparable.

           The type of observation in this research is structured. It means that the writer has prepared guidelines for the activities and the procedures for the coding of the observed events.

d.      Interview

The interview technique will be used for the sake of completing the data of this study. It is mainly aimed to obtain the data that deals with the use of Nggahi Kore and the factors influencing it. In addition, this technique will also be applied to obtain the validity of the data since perhaps other techniques would not cover the precise or original data.

The number of question and time duration is not limit. It means that the interview could be stopped or continued depends on the data that has or has not been fully obtained.

3.5.  Data Analysis Procedure               

              Data analysis is one of the prominent ways in conducting a study. Analyzing the data is one of the most significant phases that should be carefully performed. The success of this research is essentially determined by the carefulness in analyzing the data.

The data acquired will be analyzed based on the basis of the following procedures:

1.             Identification

In this step, the writer identifies the participants (speech community) and the context of their interaction. In participant identification, it concerns on the background, social status, age, why, where and when they use Nggahi Kore, in their interactions. It also identifies the context of culture and situations.

2.         Classification

In this step, the data will be classified based on the needs of the study. It means that the data of the speaker motivation in using the Nggahi Kore for instance, will be separately listed or grouped from the data of linguistic aspect that is intended to reveal the linguistic status of this language (Nggahi Kore). Simply speaking, the data classification would be based on the needs of answering the research questions.

3.         Description

            The writer describes what factors that determine the use of Nggahi Kore in Taloko and Piong village. It concerns with the status of Nggahi Kore, the domain(s) of the use of Nggahi Kore and the functions of Nggahi Kore from some perspectives by referring to the literature review.

4.         Explanation

              The data that have been explained and classified are analyzed based on the language that they used in daily conversation. The writer explains the usage of Nggahi Kore based on the status, domain and functions of the language used. What are domains dominantly in usage of Nggahi Kore and whether different domain and status can influence the function of language used.

  

REFERENCES

Adams, Y., Matu, P. M., And Ongarora, D. O. 2012. Language use and choice: A case study of Kinubi in Kibera, Kenya. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. Vol. 2, 99-104.

Alwasilah, Drs A, Cheadar .1985.Sosiologi Bahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.

BPS Kabupaten Bima (Statistics of Bima Regency), 2015. Sanggar Districts in Figure.

Barker, G. C.. 1945. The Social Functions Of Language. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 2 (4). Institute of General Semantics: 228–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42575938.Accesed on, February 2016 at 20.00pm.

Berg, B.L. 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Brun,G.H. and Wolff, S (Eds). 2003. Minority Languages in Europe; Frameworks, Status, Prospects. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Claire, B, 2008. Fieldwork in Contact Situations. A Journal. Taken from www.pdfbe.net/pdf/mixed_language.html. Accessed on, may 2015 at 10:00AM.

Clark, H. H & ClarkE. V. 1977. Psychology and language. United State of America: Harcout Brace Jovanovich.

Coulmas, F (Ed). 1998. The handbook of Sociolinguistic. Blackwell Publishing.

Darnell, R. and Sherzer, J. 1971. “Areal Linguistic Studies in North America: a Historical Perspective.” International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 20-28.

Djohan, R.H. 2002. A descriptive study on bimanese terms of address to personal names in sanggar dialect. Unpublished thesis of Muhammadiyah University of Mataram.

Duran, L. 1994. Toward a Better Understanding of Codeswitching and Interlanguage in Bilinguality: Implications for Bilingual Instruction, The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students. New Mexico Press. The University of New Mexico.

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. New York: Longman Inc.

Finocchiaro, M. 1964, ‘English a Second Language From Theory to Practice.” New York: Regents Publishing Company, Inc.

Fishman, J. A. 1989. Language and ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic perspective multilingual Matters (series): 45. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Grimes C.E, T Therik, BD Grimes & M Jacob 1997. A guide to the People and Languages of Nusa Tenggara. Arta Wacana Press Kupang.

Greenberg, J.H. 1953. Historical Linguistics and Unwritten Languages. Anthropology Today. A. L. Kroeber, (Ed.). Chicago, University of Chicago Press:265-286.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCOmpte, M. D. 1984. Ethnology and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heat.

Gumperz, J.J. & Cook-Gumperz J. 1982. ‘Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity.’ In Gumperz J j (ed) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Hadi, Sutrisno. 1994. Pengantar Penelitian Ilmiah. Bandung: PT. Tarsito.

Holmes, J. 1992. An introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English. London: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. H. 1974. Foundation in Sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jendra.I.I, Made 2010. Sociolinguistics: the study of societies’ Languages. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Jonker, J. C. G. 1893. Bimanee sch- Hollandsch woorde nboek. Batavia.

Kessler, B. 2001. The Significance of Word List. Stanford. CA, CSLI Publications.

Langacker, R. W. 1972. Fundamentals of Linguistic Analysis. New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mahsun. 2006. Pemetaan dan distribusi varian-varian bahasa mbojo. Yogyakarta: Gama media.

Mahyuni. 2006. Speech Styles and Culture: an Analysis in Sasak Community. Lombok: Yayasan Cerdas.

Meyerhoff, M. 2006. Introducing Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.

Molina, S.C., 1997. Language Policy: Status Planning for the Quechua Language inPeru. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics. Vol.13, 31-48.

Nababan, P.W.J. 1991. SosiolinguistikSuatu Pengantar. Jakarta:Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Pei, Mario. 1952. The story of Language. London: Allen and Uwin

Rodman. F. V. R. 1974An Introduction to Language Rinehart and Winston: University of California Holt.

Romaine, S. 1994. Language in society; An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford University press. The University of Mexico.

Savignon, S. J. 1983.Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Scotton, C.M. 2006. Multiple voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Madlen: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Schiffman, H. F. 1998. Diglossia as a Sociolinguistic Situation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Sigurdsson, H., and Carey, S. 1989. "Plinian and Co-Igmibrite Tephra Fall from the 1815 Eruption of Tambora Volcano". Bulletin of Volcanology 51 (4): 243–270.

Spolsky, B.1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Thomason, S. G. 1997. Introduction. Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. S.G. Thomason, Ed.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 1-7.

Tripp, S.E. 1964. An AnalysisoftheInteraction of Language,Topic and Listener.American Anthropologist: Vol 66, 86-102.

Wardaugh, R. 2006. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: FIFTH EDITION. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.

Williams, J. R. 1993. Expression and Communication as Basic Linguistic function. New York: State University of New York Press.

Yule G. 2006. The study of language. Cambridge: CUP.

Yusra, K. 2012. Language and Solidarity. (a New Horizon in the Study of Language and Social Realities). Mataram Lombok: Cerdas Press.