11.3lanjutan

  (p) sychology throu(gh) (k)nife 

Spelling reform strongly affects the already literate and reveals the societal network, ramification, and linguistic adjustments which are apparently only technical in nature. Yet, spelling reform does represent departure from established written tradition and therefore must deal wits is guardians, the authors, priests, professors, and the institutions they serve (fish man 1972b: 181).
Some writing systems are obviously better suited to the languages they represent than others, that is, it is relatively easier for the native speaker to learn to read and write in his own language whit one system than whit another. For example the Cyrillic alphabet is more suitable for Russian than the Roman alphabet is for English, while the latter is more efficient than the use of Chinese characters for writing Japanese or Chinese. On the other hand, has some advantages which would be lost if alphabetic writing were adopted, for example, the distinguishing of homophonous word, and the facilitating of written communication among widely separated and non mutually intelligible dialects. Advantages such as this are often cited by those opposed to reform of writing systems. Thus, people rightly point out that, were English to be written phonetically, we could no longer distinguish in writing between "no" and "know," Or between "fair" fare," although each of the latter also contains a subset of homophonous words. But conservatives, and others, rarely argue issues solely on their merits alone. Rather, there is an emotional and ideological attachment to those things which one defends. This is just as true of defense of existing writing systems as it is of any others cause for writing system come to have symbolic value. They many come to have a sacred or semi sacred character if revered religious texts are written in them, particularly if that language is no longer spoken.
It would seem as if extensive spelling reform is carried out only under extraordinary social and political conditions, perhaps most effectively under a well organized, dictatorship, for example, spelling reform in Russia after the Bolshevik takeover, the substitution of the roman for the Arabic alphabet in turkey under Ataturk, or current efforts in china to simplify of the millennia old Chinese ideographic system.
There is no near parallel any place in the word to the massive, planned language change taking place now in china. Hundreds of simplified characters are now in regular use, and Putonghua (common speech) is spreading rapidly among the 30 percent of the Chinese populations which speak dialects not mutually intelligible with Putonghua. Romanized spelling is extending to other uses, and changes are progressing toward the ultimate goal of replacing both traditional and simplified characters (ferguson1975:6). The mainland Chinese, at least, have given up for the time being however, any major effort to replace their traditional logographic characters with a phonemic alphabet; rather, they have decided to concentrate on the simplification traditional writing. Thus, the goal also of separate, written, phonetic language for the regional dialects has also bin given up. Phonetic writing (pinyin) is used as and aid in pronouncing characters in textbooks, in library filing. In the navy and fishing fleet, in many of the railroad, and for other largely auxiliary purposes (Defrancis1972:450-461).

11.4 Social and language conflict
 Next to change, perhaps the most pervasive feature of human societies is conflict, between individuals, between individual and group, and between groups. While poor communication between groups may result in conflict, more generally the roots of conflict, more prestige, or simply to gain certain basic rights. Conflict may range in intensity from verbal abuse to physical violence, resulting in the destruction of life and property. At other times, the conflict may be muted and subtle, as in ridicule of a person's manner of speech.
The most important type of social conflict, in the context of the sociology of language, is conflict over language rights. Violence may occur because people are not allowed to speak or write their own language, or because a particular language has been chosen for official governmental use, so that speakers of other languages are at a disadvantage in competition for civil service jobs. Witness the notorious language riots in India, in which numerous persons were killed or injured, or note south Africa's worst racial violence in its history in June 1976, resulting in hundreds of persons killed. This was triggered by black high school students protesting the government requirement that they taught half their classes in Africans the language of the dominant Boers, which was to them a symbol of write oppression. Half of the classes were in English, which they preferred and regarded as a progressive language, a bridge to the outside world. The government eventually rescinded the order.
Where languages are of officially equal status, as in Switzerland, and upward mobility is not blocked by an elite language group, language differences are not divisive, and individuals can seek to climb the class ladder. Where mobility is blocked by the recognition of one preferred language, as in Belgium or Canada, language differences are ordinarily politically divisive; the individual must unite with members of his language group to raise the group as a whole, through political action. In India, English is less divisive than Hindi as an official language because it is a second language for almost the entire population and an equal handicap for them. Inglehart and Woodward(1972:366) believe that, if upward social mobility is not a normal expectation, there is less likelihood of language differences leading to political conflict. Official status of languages is critical in newly industrializing countries because government jobs provide the chief avenue for upward mobility.