Esti Apisari, M. Suryadi, Nurhayati

Tuturan di Wilayah Perbatasan:Studi Kasus di Daerah Leksono, Kabupaten Wonosobo

Introduction

Tuturan di wilayah perbatasan:studi kasus di daerah leksono, kabupaten wonosobo. Studi kasus tuturan di Leksono, Wonosobo, mengungkap interaksi dialek Solo-Yogya & Banyumas di perbatasan. Analisis variasi ngoko & krama, serta hegemoni Solo-Yogya dalam seni & agama.

Abstract

Topography is one of the factors that influence language development in an area. Leksono is one of the areas located on the border of Wonosobo and Banjarnegara regency. The people of Wonosobo generally spoke Solo-Yogya dialect, while Banjarnegara people used Banyumas dialect. This fact caused the people of Leksono to encounter the two dialects. The stersebutation affected the speech of Leksono people. This research aims to describe the speech of Leksono people. This article belongs to descriptive qualitative. The method used was listening with note-taking technique. The data were utterances in the community itself. When there was a formal or informal event, the dialog in the community was recorded and transcribed. Based on the analysis, in the daily conversations and informal settings, the dominant speech was the ngoko variety of Banyumas dialect. However, the Solo-Yogya dialect ngoko variety was also acceptable. Unlike the ngoko variety, the krama variety that develops in Leksono was the Solo-Yogya dialect. This variety was used to speak to people who were respected. Meanwhile, in the fields of art and religion, the Solo-Yogya dialect was also dominantly used. In fact, the dialect is not only used in the krama variety. The ngoko variety also uses the Solo-Yogya dialect when the Leksono community makes art. This shows the hegemony of Solo-Yogya over the Leksono community.

Review

This study offers a fascinating glimpse into the intricate linguistic landscape of Leksono, a border region between Wonosobo and Banjarnegara regencies. The research adeptly addresses the impact of topographical and geographical proximity on language development, specifically focusing on the interplay between Solo-Yogya and Banyumas dialects. By describing the speech patterns of Leksono residents, the authors illuminate how these distinct dialects manifest across various social contexts, from daily informal conversations to formal events and specialized domains like art and religion. The findings, indicating a dominant Banyumas ngoko variety for informal speech but a Solo-Yogya krama variety for respectful interactions, and a pervasive Solo-Yogya dialect in cultural spheres, underscore the complex dynamics of dialect contact and prestige in border communities. This work makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of sociolinguistic variation in Indonesia. While the descriptive qualitative approach is appropriate for this type of inquiry, further methodological clarity would strengthen the paper. The abstract states that the method involved "listening with note-taking technique," but also mentions that "the dialog in the community was recorded and transcribed." It would be beneficial to elaborate on the systematicity of this data collection. For instance, what was the duration of observation? How were "utterances in the community itself" selected to ensure representativeness? Details on the number of participants, types of events observed, and ethical considerations for recording would enhance the reproducibility and credibility of the findings. Clarifying the transcription conventions and the process of data analysis (e.g., how "dominant speech" was determined) would also be valuable for readers. The study's conclusions regarding the "hegemony of Solo-Yogya over the Leksono community" are particularly intriguing and warrant further theoretical engagement. This finding suggests a significant role for sociopolitical or cultural prestige in shaping linguistic choices, even in informal domains like art. Future research could delve deeper into the perceptions of these dialects by the Leksono community members themselves, perhaps using matched-guise techniques or interviews to explore attitudes towards each dialect. Investigating the historical and social factors contributing to this observed hegemony would also enrich the analysis. Overall, this paper provides a solid foundation for understanding the intricate dialectal interactions in border areas and opens up several promising avenues for future sociolinguistic inquiry.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.