RESUME SOCIOLINGUISTICS LOMPOK 2

DOSEN PENGAMPU: Dr. H. Pauzan,M,Hum,M.Pd

Name : Setiawan kurniajaya (1901070850)
: Munafian alfaini (190107090 )
: Hairul annas (190107098 )

TBI 5-C
FAKULTAS TARBIYAH DAN KEGURUAN
UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI
MATARAM
2021
1. Definitions of Bilingualism

Bilingualism as a topic has been widely covered in research literature, and

has expanded into numerous sub-topics. Some examples of sub-topics are,
cognitive development in bilingualism, culture and identity in bilingualism,
and bilingual education. ‘Bi’ means two, so the word simply suggests that
bilingualism is about knowing two languages. In reality, the concept of
bilingualism is much more complicated. Most literature also refers to
bilingualism as including multilingualism, and this paper will do so as well.
Most research literature, in attempting to defi ne bilingualism, has been careful to
fi rst differentiate between bilingualism in the individual and bilingualism in a
linguistic community (Baker, 2001 ; Butler, 2013 ; Hamers & Blanc, 2000 ; Harding-
Esch & Riley, 2003 ; Hoffmann, 1991). An individual who is bilingual could be a
member of a largely monolingual community. In the case of monolingual Japan, for
example, there exists people who are bilingual. As for bilingual communities, it is
believed that they usually call themselves so, or set up policies to refl ect bilingualism,
but may have members that are not bilingual. Hoffmann (1991) opines that one has to
distinguish between these two types of bilingualism as they can be fundamentally
different. A country may call itself bilingual or multilingual but in reality, its citizens
might not be so, according to Hoffmann. Baker (2001) terms the ‘individual
possession’ of bilingualism as ‘individual bilingualism’ and the ‘group possession’ of
bilingualism as ‘societal bilingualism’, as had Hoff mann. ‘Societal bilingualism’
according to Baker could refer to ‘a social group, community, region or country’ (p.2).
Hamers and Blanc (2000) opine that societal bilingualism is also just bilingualism in
general, which refers to a linguistic community that uses two languages for interaction.
Within bilingualism, they opine that there is the concept of bilinguality, which is
individual bilingualism that encompasses dimensions including but not limited to
psychological, social and cognitive dimensions. This paper will focus on individual
bilingualism within the Japanese society.
The second observation found in literature on definitions of bilingualism is that
bilingualism consists of a scale, or range, or even a spectrum (to reflect the
 multidimensional qualities of the term ‘bilingualism’), or should be defined in terms of
degrees (Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003). The two definitions of each end of the range are
undoubtedly among the most quoted definitions of bilingualism. At the highest end of
the range, Bloomfield (1933:56) defined bilingualism as the “native‒like control of two
languages”. At the lowest end of the range, Macnamara (1967) “proposes that a
bilingual is anyone who possesses a minimal competence in only one of the four
language skills, listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing, in a language
other than his mother tongue.” (Hamers and Blanc, 2000:6)
There is a lot of criticism regarding these two extremes, which this paper will
discuss later on. Many other definitions of the bilingual are on various points along the
range. An attempt at ranking some of these definitions according to expected language
capability is shown as follows. The first definition is the highest end of the range
requiring the bilingual to be a perfect user of two languages, and the last definition is
the lowest end of the range suggesting that minimal language competence is adequate
to be considered a bilingual.
A bilingual, as has been defined in literature, is :

a) someone who has “native‒like control of two languages”. (Bloomfield, 1933:56)

b) someone with “complete mastery of two diff erent languages without interference
between the two linguistic process”. (Oestreicher, 1974:9)
c) “a person who knows two languages with approximately the same degree of perfection
as unilingual speakers of those languages”. (Christopherson, 1948:4)
d) one of “those people who need and use two or more languages (or dialects) in their
everyday lives”. (Grosjean, 2010:4)
e) “an individual (who) possesses more than one language competence”. (Valdes &
Figueroa, 1994:8)
f) someone who is involved in the “practice of alternately using two languages”.

g) someone who practices “the alternate use of two or more languages”. (Mackey,
1970:555)
h) someone who is capable of speaking “a second language while following the concepts
and structures of that language rather than paraphrasing his or her mother tongue”.
(Titone, 1972 in Hamers and Blanc, 2000:6‒7)
 i) someone who may have “all degrees of accomplishment, but … (as) … the speaker of
one language can produce complete, meaningful utterances in the other language.”
(Haugen, 1953:6‒7)
j) someone who has “the ability to speak, listen, read, and/or write in more than one
language with varying degrees of profi ciency”. (Brice & Brice, 2009)
k) “anyone who possesses a minimal competence in only one of the four language skills,
listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing, in a language other than his
mother tongue.” (Macnamara, 1967 in Hamers and Blanc, 2000:6)
2. realitionsip between Bilinguality and bilingualism
In this chapter first we define the relevant dimensions of bilinguality and bilingualism
on the basis of the empirical evidence available in these fields. In the second part we
enumerate the main different measures developed in order to try to quantify the relevant
concepts.
DIMENSIONS OF BILINGUALITY AND BILINGUALISM
When qualifiers are used to describe bilingualism or bilinguality, they generally focus
on one single dimension of these phenomena which are thereby viewed from a
particular angle. If we use some of the classifications put forward by researchers it is
because they seem to us to be relevant to the dimension under study; however, we must
not lose sight of the fact that bilinguality and bilingualism are multidimensional
phenomena which must be investigated as such. In the past, failure to take into account
simultaneously other dimensions in addition to linguistic ones has all too often led to
incomplete or erroneous interpretations of these phenomena.
Dimensions of bilinguality
In Chapter 1 we made a distinction between bilingualism and bilinguality. We view
bilinguality as the psychological state of an individual who has access to more than one
linguistic code as a means of social communication. This access is multidimensional as
it varies along a number of psychological and sociological dimensions. We have found
the following dimensions relevant:
1. (1) relative competence;
2. (2) cognitive organisation;
3. (3) age of acquisition;
4. (4) exogeneity;
5. (5) social cultural status; and
6. (6) cultural identity.

3 Kind of bilingualism

A. Bilingualism Coordination
 Also known in some places as subtractive bilingualism, in this type individuals learn
languages separately, in separate environments, and maintain this separation after
mastering both. For example, a student who speaks one language at home is acquired
through his parents and home environment and then learns a second language at school.
He only spoke a second language at school, in the classroom environment, and the
languages remained separate in his mind.

B. Compound Bilingualism
In Compound Bilingualism there is no such dividing line; Individuals learn
languages in the same environment and context and they are often used together or even
interchangeably. Sometimes known as additive bilingualism, an example is when a child
is raised by bilingual parents and both languages are spoken at home. In the individual's
mind, languages are not separate and can be switched between at will, even while
speaking. (As anyone who knows such a person can attest, it should be written
frequently when speaking!)

C. Sub-ordinatif Bilingualism
language that shows that an individual when using language one often enters
language two or vice versa. This bilingualism is related to the situation faced by
language one. It is a small group that is surrounded and dominated by a large language
community so that this small community may lose its other language.

In sociolinguistics, diglossia is a situation in which two distinct varieties of a language

are spoken within the same speech community. Bilingual diglossia is a type of diglossia
in which one language variety is used for writing and another for speech. When people
are bidialectal, they can use two dialects of the same language, based on their
surroundings or different contexts where they use one or the other language variety. The
term diglossia (from the Greek for "speaking two languages") was first used in English
by linguist Charles Ferguson in 1959.
4 Diction Versus Diglossia
Diglossia is more involved than just switching between levels of diction in the same
language, such as going from slang or texting shortcuts to writing up a formal paper for a
class or report for a business. It's more than being able to use a language's vernacular.
Diglossia, in a strict definition, is distinct in that the "high" version of a language isn't
used for ordinary conversation and has no native speakers.

Examples include the differences between standard and Egyptian Arabic; Greek; and
Haitian Creole.

"In the classic diglossic situation, two varieties of a language, such as standard French
and Haitian creole French, exist alongside each other in a single society," explains author
Robert Lane Greene. "Each variety has its own fixed functions—one a 'high,' prestigious
variety, and one a 'low,' or colloquial, one. Using the wrong variety in the wrong situation
would be socially inappropriate, almost on the level of delivering the BBC's nightly news
in broad
Scots." He continues the explanation:
Children learn the low variety as a native language; in diglossic cultures, it is the
language of home, the family, the streets and marketplaces, friendship, and solidarity. By
contrast, the high variety is spoken by few or none as a first language. It must be taught in
school. The high variety is used for public speaking, formal lectures and higher
education, television broadcasts, sermons, liturgies, and writing. (Often the low variety
has no written form.)" ("You Are What You Speak." Delacorte, 2011)
Author Ralph W. Fasold takes this last aspect a bit further, explaining that people are
taught the high (H) level in school, studying its grammar and rules of usage, which they
then apply to the low (L) level as well when speaking. However, he notes, "In many
diglossic communities, if speakers are asked, they will tell you L has no grammar, and
that L speech is the result of the failure to follow the rules of H grammar" ("Introduction
to Sociolinguistics: The Sociolinguistics of Society," Basil Blackwell, 1984). The high
 language also has more intense grammar—more inflections, tenses, and/or forms than the
low version.

Neither is diglossia always as benign as a community that just happens to have two
languages, one for law and one for chatting personally. Autor Ronald Wardhaugh, in "An
Introduction to Sociolinguistics," notes, "It is used to assert social position and to keep
people in their place, particularly those at the lower end of the social hierarchy" (2006).

5. Different Definition of Diglossia

Other definitions of diglossia don't require the social aspect to be present and just
concentrate on the plurality, the different languages for different contexts. For example,
Catalan (Barcelona) and Castillian (Spain as a whole) Spanish, don't have a social
hierarchy to their usage but are regional. The versions of Spanish have enough overlap
that they can be understood by speakers of each but are different languages. The same
applies to Swiss German and standard German; they are regional. Diglossia can be
presented as two versions of the same language used for different social contexts (Arabic
is the language that is prototypical for this). Bilingualism means different things to
different people. Generally it means an individual who commands and uses two
languages. In language proficiency this means two languages at the same level of
mastery. At sociolinguistics level this just means two languages. Often diglossia is used
to talk about the use within society. The problem comes when some use the term
bilingualism within the society. It is rare to find the term diglossia outside of
sociolinguistics. Bilingualism is used by psychology, sociology, education, and policy
makers--thus the more generic and less tight defintion or functional use of the term.
The difference between Diglossia and Bilingualism
Diglossia
Refers to a situation in which two dialects or languages are used by a single language
community. In addition to the community’s every day or vernacular language variety
(labeled “L” or “low” variety), a second, highly codified variety (labeled “H” or “high”)
is used in certain situations such as literature, formal education, or other specific settings,
but not used for ordinary conversation.
The use of two markedly different varieties of a language in different social situations,
such as a formal variety at work and an informal variety at home.
(E.g. Standard German with Low German (e.g., Plattdeutsch dialects), Other examples
Indonesian, with its Baku and Gaul forms.

Billingualism
Bilingualism is the ability of an individual or the members of a community to use two
languages effectively.
• Bilingual speakers learn their languages either simultaneously, as they grow up, or
sequentially, learning the second language after the first (usually at school).
• The degree of proficiency bilingual people achieve in their languages often depends on
the wider society’s attitudes to the languages concerned and the opportunities available to
use them.
• Bilingual speakers may use their languages equally, but they often use particular
languages in particular contexts, for particular purposes, and with particular people.