From the

AERA Online Paper Repository

http://www.aera.net/repository

Paper Title Heritage Language Education Policy Toward Justice

for Indigenous Peoples: The Cases of Javanese in Indonesia and
Nathuatle in Mexico
Author(s) Lusia Marliana Nurani, Arizona State University;
Rosalva Mojica Lagunas, Arizona State University - Tempe
Session Title Beyond "Resource or Right": Critical Heritage
Language Education and Social Justice
Session Type Session Paper
Presentation Date 4/19/2015
Presentation Location Chicago, Illinois
Descriptors
Methodology
Unit Division G - Social Context of Education

Each presenter retains copyright on the full-text paper. Repository users

should follow legal and ethical practices in their use of repository material;
permission to reuse material must be sought from the presenter, who owns
copyright. Users should be aware of the AERA Code of Ethics.

Citation of a paper in the repository should take the following form:

[Authors.] ([Year, Date of Presentation]). [Paper Title.] Paper presented at
the [Year] annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. Retrieved [Retrieval Date], from the AERA Online Paper
Repository.
 Heritage Language Education Policy toward Justice for Indigenous Peoples:

The Cases of Javanese in Indonesia and Nahuatl in Mexico

Introduction

The paper investigates recent dramatic changes in the linguistic repertoires of the

Javanese, the Indigenous people in Yogyakarta, Indonesia and the Indigenous Mexican People in

Coatepec de los Costales, Guerrero, Mexico, and the implications for critical heritage language

education (CHLE) in each national setting. The cases were selected because they provide

insights into CHLE within two multilingual/multicultural nations in the midst of modern

transformations. In both cases, a modern nation state identity is shaping the national linguistic

landscape by privileging Indonesian and Spanish, respectively, in all domains. Moreover, the

shift away from the Indigenous language toward a dominant/colonial language is directly linked

to national language policies, particularly medium instruction policies in schools.

The theoretical frameworks of this paper comprise of one nation-one language discourse

and critical ethnography of language policy and planning. The one nation-one language discourse

points out the idea of language as a symbol of shared nationhood in these multilingual and

multiethnic nations. Critical ethnography of language planning and policy offers holistic

approach to examine the micro level (family), meso (schools), and macro (national language

policy). In addition, this framework also highlights the importance of the insiders perspective to

understand a community. Our roles as both insiders and researchers make it possible to minimize

misinterpretations of the phenomena found in the field and to accurately present the voice of the

Javanese and the Indigenous Mexican from Coatepec.

Each case study is based on situated ethnographic inquiry that included: (1) participant

and nonparticipant observation in family homes, schools, and community settings; (2) archival

1
document analysis; and (3) use of Seidman's (2013) three part interview sequence (focused life

history, details of experience, reflections on meaning) with teachers, parents, and students. We

coded and analyzed these data for each case study, then conducted a cross case analysis of

broader themes. The interviews were conducted in Indonesian language or mix Indonesian and

Javanese for the participants in Yogyakarta and in Nahuatl and Spanish for our participants in

Mexico.

We recruited three participants of one family consisting of three generations in Indonesia

and 12 participants in Mexico across three generations using non-probability purposive sampling

because this method works well for labor-intensive and in-depth studies such as participant

observation fieldwork (Bernard, 2011): In purposive sampling, you decide the purpose you

want information (or communities) to serve, and you go out to find some (p. 145). We

purposefully recruited participants from one family in each country on the ground that we would

be able to examine the intergenerational voices with regards to their beliefs towards their native

language. These findings were of significant to unravel how the macro-level LPP interacts with

the micro-level language activities and the extent to which the government LPP influences

language actions and ideology at the micro layer. To find out how the heritage language is

disseminated in schools, we also interviewed two Javanese language teachers and conducted

classroom and school observations in one public school for 34 hours within one month period in

Yogyakarta whereas in Mexico there were three teachers who were interviewed from a K-6

public school setting, and fieldnotes and observations were collected from one school semester.

Drawing on Spolskys (2004) conceptual framework for language policy as comprised of

language practices, ideologies, and management, and the ethnography of language policy

(Hornberger, 2006; McCarty, 2011), the analysis is divided into three parts. Firstly, we examine

2
the implementation of language policy at the micro level of family homes to understand how

history, culture, and context play conjoined roles in developing Indigenous language loyalties

and identities. At the meso level, we inspect policy accommodations in schools by reviewing

formal documents (language education policies, syllabi) and policy implementation in the

classroom. Inspection at the meso level is significant because the sustainability of minoritized

languages is dependent upon the ways in which teachers act as policy interpreters and actors

(Menken & Garca, 2012). At the macro level, we analyze the ways in which national policies

support or diminish Indigenous linguistic and educational rights. The following questions guide

our analysis: How are Indigenous languages used within family homes, schools, and the

community? How does school based language education play a role in affirming or discounting

heritage language (HL) identities? How do national educational policies interact with these micro

and meso processes to impact HL maintenance and survival?

Heritage Language Policy at the Micro Level

To understand the language policy at the micro level, we examine the participants

linguistic repertoire because it represents his/her sociopragmatic and sociolinguistic competence

as well as linguistic practices in his/her speech community. According to Gumperz (1964), a

persons linguistic repertoire cannot be separated from his/her background and social context;

that is, any decisions s/he made with regard to their linguistic choices were always subject to the

social conventions in their society. The findings show that there is intergenerational shift among

the Javanese participants from their heritage language, Javanese, to Indonesian, the national and

official language. While the grandparent generation opts to maintain the heritage language for

daily communication, the second and third generations tend to speak in mix Javanese and

Indonesian at home or just Indonesian beyond home domain. Similar findings occurred in

3
Mexico. The elders in Coatepec were fluent in their heritage tongue and used Spanish words and

phrases to communicate with others. The second generation mainly spoke Spanish to

communicate but would switch to Nahuatl if there were Nahuatl speakers and sometimes would

mixed Nahuatl and Spanish in conversations. The younger generation spoke mainly Spanish but

could understand Nahuatl.

The overall findings are also in common with Messings study (2009) reporting that the

ambivalence among the Mexicano speakers in Tlaxcala, Mexico who on the one hand perceives

their native language important; on the other hand they do not make real efforts to maintain it.

While Messsing focuses her investigaton about this ambivalence only among the youth, we

discover this phenomenon exists among youth and older generation of Javanese and Mexican

Indigenous. All our Javanese participants hold positive attitude toward Javanese language by

stating that the language is a representation of their Javanese identity. However, ambivalence

among Javanese participants with regards to the maintenance of their heritage language was

apparent. They believe that their heritage language must be taught in school but the time

dedicated to it should not exceed other important subjects such as science or reading. At home,

parents do not have time to teach their children the language for they are too busy to make the

ends meet.

In addition, all participants in Mexico also agreed that Nahuatl is an important language

of their ancestors and their identity and that it should be preserved and revitalized. Many of the

participants suggested that it is the governments role to give money to the villages to help

revitalize the language and that it is the schools responsibility to teach the language. Although,

they believed in the importance of their language they also believed that their children needed to

study competitive subjects and compete with other students from other parts of Mexico, in result

4
learning their language would not make them competitive amongst other students. Thier heritage

language is important but does not hold status which could prepare them for the global job

market.

Heritage Language Education

The current curriculum in both national settings is designed to prepare students to pass

state required tests, not to be active speakers of their heritage language. Thus, current school

based HL programs do not prepare students for communicative interaction outside of school. For

example, in Yogyakarta, students learned vocabulary which are no longer used in the

contemporary Javanese lexicons and grammatical rules. Although teachers wanted to emphasize

on the communicative skills in order to encourage the students to use Javanese daily, they were

not free to do so. First, teachers must obediently follow the curriculum prescribed by the regional

office of education department. If they would like to include some additional communicative

materials, they do not have enough time to execute their plan because Javanese language subject

is taught for only two hours per week. In addition, teachers are concerned with limited support

from the government.

Menawi menurut kula tasih kirang amargi sak menika saking pemerintah dados

tasih pasif. Mboten wonten buku-buku sak menika, kelas SMP mawon buku-buku

menika saben sekolah mboten wonten namung guru kemawon. Dados sak menika

ingkang aktif menika gurunipun menawi pados materi wonten dinas, wonten

MGMP menika [....] Saking pemerintah niku mboten wonten pelaksanaan terjun

langsung maringi buku napa materi kaliyan siswa menika mboten wonten.

In my opinion (support from government) is still limited because the government

is still pasive (to maintain the language). There is no book published by the

5
 government (to be distributed to each student), in middle school only the teachers

receive textbook. Therefore it is only the teachers who are active to find teaching

materials in the district office. From the government there is no action to for

instance distributing books (for free) to the students. Nothing at all.

In Mexico, a significant overarching finding was that there is a distinct gap in teacher

knowledge of students language and culture and their ability to adequately meet the needs of

Indigenous students. Teachers were not adequately nor appropriately prepared to serve students

in Indigenous communities. The teachers did not know the students heritage language or culture

and used the same mainstream curriculum as teachers used teaching in Mexico City. The

government did not aide teachers or school with appropriate school materials, such as books,

supplies, and computers. At the same time, teachers showed an interest in learning about the

students community, but they did not get the support from the school administrators.

National Language Policies

Indonesia is the home of 719 languages; of these, 704 are living and 13 are extinct. Of

the living languages, 21 are institutional, 97 are developing, 248 are vigorous, 265 are in trouble,

and 75 are dying (ethnologue, n.d). Because of this linguistic richness, ten percent of the world

languages today can be found in Indonesia and this makes Indonesia the second linguistically

diverse country in the world after Papua New Guinea (Evans, 2009). As a consequence of this

linguistic diversity (it is worth noting that most of these languages are not mutually intelligible),

Indonesian is used as the lingua franca so that the speakers of these ethnic languages can

communicate with each other. It is now the fifth most spoken language in the world

(Alisjahbana, 1984). The position of Indonesian is so strong that it is formally declared as the

6
official and national language of the nation in the Constitution of Indonesia 1954, specifically in

article 36.

The Constitution of Indonesia 1945

Article 36
The language of the country is Bahasa Indonesia Indonesian language

Furthermore, the position of Indonesian as the official and national language is strengthened by

the Ministerial Decree no. 24/2009.

The Decree of Republic of Indonesia Number 24 Year 2009

Article 35
(1) The Indonesian language shall be used in the writing of scientific papers and
scientific publications in Indonesia.
(2) Writings and publications for the purpose of specialized areas of study, as referred to
in paragraph (1), may use local languages or foreign languages.

Article 36
(1) The Indonesian language shall be used for geographic names in Indonesia.
(2) The geographic names as referred to in paragraph (1) only have one official name.
(3) The Indonesian language shall be used to name buildings or building premises,
streets, apartments or housing complexes, offices, commercial complexes, trademarks,
business institutions, educational institutions, and institutions founded or owned by
Indonesian citizens or Indonesian legal entities.
(4) The naming as referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) may use local or
foreign languages where they are of historical, cultural, customary, and/or religious
value.

Article 37
(1) The Indonesian language shall be used in information about goods or the
production of goods domestic or foreign circulating in Indonesia.
(2) The information referred to in paragraph (1) may be supplemented with local or
foreign languages as necessary.

Article 38
(1) The Indonesian language shall be used for public signs, street signs, public
facilities, banners, and other information tools considered to be public services.

7
 (2) The use of Indonesian as referred to in paragraph (1) may be accompanied by local
or foreign languages.

Article 39
(1) The Indonesian language shall be used in information distributed via mass media.
(2) Mass media as referred to in paragraph (1) may use local or foreign languages for
special purposes or objectives.

Article 40
More precise provisions for the use of Indonesian language referred to in article 26
through 39 shall be stipulated by Presidential Regulations.

Not only is Indonesian fostered as the national and official language of Indonesia, it is also

cultivated to be one of the international languages. To make this happen, the Indonesian

government incorporates this plan in this Ministerial Decree no. 24/2009, specifically in the

fourth part.

Fourth Part
The promotion of the Indonesian languages function as international language

Article 44
(1) The government shall promote the Indonesian language to become international
language in gradual, systematic, and sustainable manners.
(2) The promotion of the Indonesian languages function as international language
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be coordinated by the language institutions.
(3) More precise provisions for the facilities to improve competence in foreign languages
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be stipulated by Government Regulations.

With very strong support from the government, it is not surprising that Indonesian has become

the most important language in Indonesia. As a lingua franca, Indonesian has succesfully enabled

people from various ethnic groups to communicate with each other. Despite its important role to

unify hundreds of ethnic groups, Indonesian has been accused of being the number one killer

language because the speakers of ethnic languages opted to shift away from their native language

and chose Indonesian as their primary language in all domains. Indeed, Indonesian language

8
policy has created an environment which discourages the ethnic languages to thrive within the

national domain; as a result, the policy has hampered the nations linguistic ecology (Zentz

2012).

To maintain the linguistic diversity, Indonesian government does try to make effors to

foster the linguistic vitality of its ethnic languages as expressed in the following in the

Ministerial Decree No. 24/2009 article 24. Nevertheless, the intention to cultivate these

languages is outpowered by the strong policies to use Indonesian in all domains. This situation is

indeed very unfortunate for it has resulted to extinction and endangerment of a significant

number of ethnic languages.

Third Part
Development, Enhancement, and Protection of the Indonesian Language

Article 41
(1) The government shall develop, enhance, and protect Indonesian language and
literatures so that they may continue to fulfill their social positions and functions in life.
(2)The development, enhancement, and protection as referred to in paragraph (1) shall
be performed gradually, systematically, and sustainably by language institutions.
(3) More precise provisions for the development, enhancement, and protection referred to
in paragraph (1) shall be stipulated by Government Regulations.

Article 42
(1) Local governments shall develop, enhance, and protect local languages and
literatures so that they may continue to fulfill their social positions and functions in
community life according to the development of the era and in order to maintain its
place within Indonesias cultural richness.
(2) The development, enhancement, and protection as referred to in paragraph (1) shall
be performed gradually, systematically, and sustainably by local governments under the
coordination of language institutions.
(3) More precise provisions for the development, enhancement, and protection referred to
in paragraph (1) shall be stipulated by Government Regulations.

Because of intensive language policy and planning since 1945, the shift away from

Javanese language and the inclination toward Indonesian had been evident since 1970s, as

9
reported by some scholars such as Errington (1998), Oetomo (1990), Tanner (1972), and Wolff

and Poejosoedarmo (1982). Although the number of the Javanese is around 50% of the national

population, only 40.5% of the total population of this ethnic group speak Javanese language

(Drake, 1989). Besides large scale shift to Indonesian, the Javanese nowadays have more

positive attitude toward foreign languages, specifically Arabic and English, than their native

language. As the home of the worlds biggest Muslim population, Indonesia is a place where

Arabic as liturgic language is highly valued. Specifically, in the past two decades, the society has

transformed to be more inclined to Islamic ways even though Indonesia is religiously plural

(Smith-Hefner, 2007, 2009). It is thus unsurprising that the Javanese Muslims perceive learning

Arabic crucial for their religious identity. As a consequence, passing on their native language to

their children is not a priority because they do not see any tangible benefits from their native

language (Smith-Hefner, 2007, 2009). With regards to English, Zentz (2012) reported that the

Javanese strongly favors English despite the fact that its function is completely a foreign

language. However, the Javanese now see the mastery of English as beneficial skills in the job

market. English is also a high-stake mandatory test administered in the secondary education

national exam and the university entrance exam. In addition, English is considered prestigious,

modern, successful, and intelligent because those who are competent in English generally come

from educated and upper middle class level. As a result, these have made strong pressure for

most people to learn it including the Javanese (Sneddon, 2003). Due to the governments

tremendous support toward Indonesian and encouragement to learn foreign language while

official efforts to foster Javanese (and other regional languages) are very limited makes Javanese

unable to compete with Indonesian and foreign languages (especially English).

10
 Nahuatl, often referred as Mexicano, comes from the Uto-Aztecan language family.

Most of the speakers are located in central Mexico: Guerrero, Puebla, Morelos, Veracruz,

Michoacan, Hidalgo, and Nayarit. The estimated number of speakers ranges from 1.3 to 1.5

million (Archive of Indigenous Language of Latin America [AILLA], 2010; Baldauf and Kaplan

2007; McCarty, 2011). In 2000, the Mexican national census described the number of

Indigenous-language speakers as having declined as a percentage of the total population. The

decline in speakers represents the language shift that has taken place in Mexico. Mexicos

historical events have changed individuals language ideologies and caused language shift from

Nahuatl to Spanish.

In 1519, there were more than 25 million Indigenous speakers in Mexico, but after the

European invasion in 1605, only one million speakers remained (Heath, 1972). Spanish quickly

became the majority language and became associated with prestige and success, and the

Indigenous language became the minority. People who spoke their Indigenous language were

punished and were forbidden to speak it at school. Mexico was in a healing process, from the

Spaniards colonization and had lost their identity. Mexico was building its new national identity

and needed to unite all people. This meant that the Indigenous people needed to integrate into

Mexicos new culture--one language-one nation ideology. Many of the Indigenous language and

culture was lost during this period.

In December 2002, Ley General de Derechos Linguisticos de los Pueblos Indigenas

(General Law of Linguistic Rights of the Indigenous Peoples) passed. This law recognized the

various Indigenous languages spoken in Mexico and protected the rights of people to speak it.

The government recognized various Indigenous places and encouraged them to preserve their

languages, such as, promoting bilingual and bicultural education. Although, Mexico has

11
recognized Indigenous languages, Spanish continues to be the dominant language in all national

institutions. There is little support in the Indigenous villages and in the education field there is

not enough teachers who are trained to teach heritage languages.

Conclusion

In summary, the two cases in Indonesia and Mexico share similar findings pertaining one

nation-one language discourse in the micro, meso, and macro level. This ideology plays a role in

the language shift from their heritage language to the majority language; hence, it continues to

put value and status on one language. Based upon these two in-depth language ethnography

cases, the heritage languages are in a stage of danger of being instinct relatively in the near

future, especially in the case of Mexico. In addition, this recurring theme is occurring in many

different places across the globe. Our discussion is to shed light to the linguistic repertoires and

to begin the discussion of maintaining heritage language education in order to maintain heritage

language and culture across generations.

Looking at the micro level, we uncover that the younger generations have steered away

from their heritage language towards the colonial language. In most cases, the older generations

continue to keep their Indigenous language. In these two cases, heritage language education

lacks the resources to fully implement language and culture classes. Teachers are not given the

adequate tools and training in order to teach the students. The current goal is to have students do

well on test and not fully embrace their language. As in the national language policies, there is no

space for Indigenous languages. The dominant language is used in all national domains and

therefore shifting peoples ideology to the one language-one nation ideology. The dominant

language carries status and power therefore, people acquire the dominant language in order to be

competitive in the job market and turn away from their heritage language.

12
 Synthesizing all the findings we move towards possible outcomes and questions. How

can we promote heritage language education in all contexts? Homes, schools and community can

play important roles in maintaining critical language education. Heritage language education

promotes language and culture maintenance. We need to shift away from one language and one

nation discourse and embrace multi-languages and culture. All levels need to work together in

order to give equal status and provide space for Indigenous languages. As Indigenous

researchers, we continue to do research in our communities to unite one another and begin the

discussion of heritage language. We begin the movement within our families and then continue

to share the findings to the larger field of language policies.

13
 References

Alisjahbana, S.T. (1984). The concept of language standardization and its application to the
Indonesian language. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Linguistic minorities and literacy (pp. 77-
98). Berlin, Germany: Mouton.

Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research method in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press.

Baldauf, R. & Kaplan, R. (2007). Language planning and policy. NY: Multilingual Matters.

Drake, C. (1989). National integration in Indonesia: Patterns and policies. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Press.

Errington, J.J. (1998). Shifting languages: Interaction and identity in Javanese Indonesia. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Evans, N. (2009). Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Oxford,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hamel, R. (2008). Indigenous language policy and education in Mexico. Encyclopedia of

language and education, 1, pp. 301-312.

Heath, S. (1972). Telling Tongues. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hornberger, N. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In Ricento, T. (Ed.), An
introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 24-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

McCarty, T. L. (2011). Ethnography and language policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Menken, K. & Garca, O. (Eds.). 2012). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as
policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Messing, J. H. E. (2009). Ambivalence and ideology among Mexicano youth in Tlaxcala,

Mexico. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8, 350364.

Oetomo, D. (1990) The Indonesian of the middle class. Prisma, 50 (September), 6879.

Seidman, I. (2000). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith- Hefner, N. J. (2009). Language shift, gender, and ideologies of modernity in Central
Java, Indonesia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19/1,57-77.

14
Smith-Hefner, N. J. (2007). Javanese women and the veil in post-Soeharto Indonesia. Journal of Asian
Studies, 66/2, 389-420.

Sneddon, J. (2003). The Indonesian language: its history and role in modern society. Sydney: University
of New South Wales Press.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tanner, N. (1972). Speech and society among the Indonesian elite: A case study of a multilingual
community. In Pride, J.B. & Holmes, J (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 125141). New York, NY:
Penguin.

Wolff, J. U. & Poedjosoedarmo, S. (1982). Communicative codes in Central Java. Linguistic Series VIII,
Data Paper no. 116. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Southeast Asia Program.

Zentz, L. (2012). Global languages identities and ideologies in an Indonesian university context.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson.

15