CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Study Language planning is generally defined as an intervention intended to influence language or language use.

Cooper (1989:45) defines language planning as "deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes". Blommaert (1996:207) considers language planning "to cover all cases in which authorities attempt, by whatever means, to shape a sociolinguistic profile for their society". The objectives are usually social, political, or economic in character. Language policy and planning decisions arise in response to sociopolitical needs. Language planning decisions may be required, for example, where a number of linguistic groups compete for access to the mechanisms of day-to-day life, or where a particular linguistic minority is denied access to such mechanisms. Both governmental and social institutions must effectively and equitably meet the needs of the population so that groups varied in linguistic repertoire have an equal opportunity to participate in their government and to receive services from their government. Language planning decisions typically attempt to meet these needs by reducing linguistic diversity, as in instances where a single language is declared a national language in a multilingual country or where a single variety of a language is declared "standard" to promote linguistic unity in a country where divergent dialects exist. Practically, each nation have language policy that manages about the uses of language. In nation overall, this policy is stated explicit ala, even constitution temporary names severally therewith role language it each. This policy among those prevailing at Indonesia, India, Ireland, Canada. In the other country government decide language are in jurisdictional, as language that used by France. Other nation as United States of America, largely lingual policy to be declared for implicitly.

Lingual policy can be divided into three approaches: monolanguage, multi-language equation, national/ regional language system. France follows first approach since 17th century, Belgian adopts second approach on 20th century, meanwhile India use third approach since independence. In whole approach, only the first approach is declared for implicitly, meanwhile both of another approaching to be formulated deep legislation. Indonesia is widely known as a country which has many ethnics, cultures and also language. ndonesia has around 300 ethnic groups, each with cultural identities developed over centuries, and influenced by Indian, Arabic, Chinese, and European sources. Traditional Javanese and Balinese dances, for example, contain aspects of Hindu culture and mythology, as do wayang kulit (shadow puppet) performances. Textiles such as batik, ikat and songket are created across Indonesia in styles that vary by region. The most dominant influences on Indonesian architecture have traditionally been Indian; however, Chinese, Arab, and European architectural influences have been significant. Also in language, Indonesia has many languages that used in each culture although that culture in same area or province. For example in Bali use Balinese, Bali use Sasak language, Java use Javanese, Java use Sundanese, Java use Maduranese, Kalimantan use Bahau Language, etc. So with this condition, will cause a lot of misunderstanding when people from different ethnic groups meet and use their respective local languages, so to reduce or eliminate this misunderstanding government raise a language as the national language and the uses of Indonesian as national language is called as Language Planning. But language planning here is not only in that case, for example the governments policy in the Study of Javanese Language in Indonesian School. Government has policy that before 1994 (Pelajaran Bahasa Jawa) Study of Javanese Language is an obligation in all education (elementary and junior high school). But after 1994, Study of Javanese Language is removed from educational sector. And now Study of Javanese Language is raised again by government, but it is as Muatan Lokal.

Based on explanation above the writer make this paper under the title Governments policy in Pelajaran Bahasa Jawa.

B. Problem of the Study. Based on the background of the study above, the writer would to investigate the following problems:
1. What is Javanese Language? 2. Why does the government raise this policy?

A. Objective of the Study. Based on the problem of the study above, the writer has following objectives of the study:
1. To know Javanese Language. 2. To know the reasons why the government raise this policy.

CHAPTER II THEORY OF FRAMEWORK In this chapter, the researcher will discuss the opinion from some expert. Some points that will be discussed are: 1. Sociolinguistic. 2. Language Planning. 3. Seven Criteria according Bell

A. Sociolinguistic Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society. Sociolinguistics differs from sociology of language in that the focus of sociolinguistics is the effect of the society on the language, while the latter's focus is on the language's effect on the society. Sociolinguistics overlaps to a considerable degree with pragmatics. It is historically closely related to linguistic anthropology and the distinction between the two fields has even been questioned recently. It also studies how language varieties differ between groups separated by certain social variables, e.g. ethnicity, religion, status, gender, level of education age, etc., and how creation and adherence to these rules is used to categorize individuals in social or socioeconomic classes. As the usage of a language varies from place to place (dialect), language usage varies among social classes, and it is these sociolects that sociolinguistics studies.

B. Language Planning Language planning is a deliberate effort to influence the function, structure, or acquisition of languages or language variety within a speech

community It is often associated with government planning, but is also used by a variety of non-governmental organizations, such as grass-roots organizations and even individuals. The goals of language planning differ depending on the nation or organization, but generally include making planning decisions and possibly changes for the benefit of communication. Planning or improving effective communication can also lead to other social changes such as language shift or assimilation, thereby providing another motivation to plan the structure, function and acquisition of languages. Language planning is generally defined as an intervention intended to influence language or language use. Cooper (1989:45) defines language planning as "deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes". Blommaert (1996:207) considers language planning "to cover all cases in which authorities attempt, by whatever means, to shape a sociolinguistic profile for their society". Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable as well as establishment of language regulators, such as formal or informal agencies, committees, societies or academies as language regulators to design or develop new structures to meet contemporary needs. It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing and computational linguistics. A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archival, processing, and retrieval of machine process able language data.

1. Language planning and language ideology

Four overarching language ideologies motivate decision making in language planning. The first, linguistic assimilation, is the belief that every member of a society, irrespective of his native language, should learn and use the dominant language of the society in which he lives. A quintessential example is the Englishonly movement in the United States. Linguistic assimilation stands in direct contrast to the second ideology, linguistic pluralism - the recognition and support of multiple languages within one society. Examples include the coexistence of French, German, Italian, and Romansh in Switzerland and the shared status of

English, Malay, Tamil, and Chinese in Singapore. The coexistence of many languages may not necessarily arise from a conscious language ideology, but rather from the efficiency in communication of a common language. The third ideology, vernacularization, denotes the restoration and development of an indigenous language along with its adoption by the state as an official language. Examples include Hebrew in the state of Israel and Quechua in Peru. The final ideology, internationalization, is the adoption of a non-indigenous language of wider communication as an official language or in a particular domain, such as the use of English in Singapore, India, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea.

2. Language planning goals Eleven Language Planning Goals have been recognized (Nahir 2003:6)
1. Language Purification prescription of usage in order to preserve the

linguistic purity of language, protect language from foreign influences, and guard against language deviation from within
2. Language Revival the attempt to turn a language with few or no

surviving native speakers back into a normal means of communication

3. Language Reform deliberate change in specific aspects of language, like

orthography, spelling, or grammar, in order to facilitate use

4. Language Standardization the attempt to garner prestige for a regional

language or dialect, transforming it into one that is accepted as the major language, or standard language, of a region 5. Language Spread the attempt to increase the number of speakers of one language at the expense of another 6. Lexical Modernization word creation or adaptation
7. Terminology Unification development of unified terminologies,

primarily in technical domains

8. Stylistic Simplification simplification of language usage in lexicon,

grammar, and style

9. Interlingual Communication facilitation of linguistic communication

between members of distinct speech communities

10. Language Maintenance preservation of the use of a groups native

language as a first or second language where pressures threaten or cause a decline in the status of the language
11. Auxiliary-Code Standardization standardization of marginal, auxiliary

aspects of language such as signs for the deaf, place names, or rules of transliteration and transcription

1. Types of language planning

Language planning has been divided into three types:

a. Status planning

Status planning is the allocation or reallocation of a language or variety to functional domains within a society, thus affecting the status, or standing, of a language. Language status Language status is a concept distinct from, though intertwined with, language prestige and language function. Strictly speaking, language status is the position or standing of a language vis--vis other languages. A language garners status according to the fulfillment of four attributes, described in the same year, 1968, by two different authors, Heinz Kloss and William Stewart. Both Kloss and Stewart stipulated four qualities of a language that determine its status. While Kloss and Stewarts respective frameworks differ slightly, they emphasize four common attributes: 1. Language origin whether a given language is indigenous or imported to the speech community 2. Degree of standardization the extent of development of a formal set of norms that define correct usage 3. Juridical status i. Sole official language (e.g. French in France and Turkish in Turkey)

ii. Joint official language (e.g. English and Afrikaans in South Africa;

French, German, Italian and Romansh in Switzerland)

iii. Regional official language (e.g. Igbo in Nigeria; Marathi in

Maharastra, India)
iv. Promoted language lacks official status on a national or regional

level but is promoted and sometimes used by public authorities for specific functions (e.g. Spanish in New Mexico; West African Pidgin English in Cameroon)
v. Tolerated

language

neither

promoted

nor

proscribed;

acknowledged but ignored (e.g. Native American languages in the United States)
vi. Proscribed language discouraged by official sanction or

restriction (e.g. Basque and Catalan during Francisco Francos regime in Spain; Macedonian in Greece)
4. Vitality the ratio, or percent, of users of a language to another variable,

like the total population. Kloss and Stewart both distinguish six classes of statistical distribution. However, they draw the line between classes at different percentages. According to Kloss, the first class, the highest level of vitality, is demarcated by 90% or more speakers. The five remaining classes in decreasing order are 70-89%, 40-69%, 20-39%, 3-19% and less than 3%. According to Stewart, on the other hand, the six classes are determined by the following percentages: 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, and less than 5%. Together, origin, degree of standardization, juridical status, and vitality dictate a languages status.

William Stewart outlines ten functional domains in language planning:

1. Official - An official language "function[s] as a legally appropriate

language for all politically and culturally representative purposes on a nationwide basis." Often, the official function of a language is specified in a constitution.

2. Provincial - A provincial language functions as an official language for a

geographic area smaller than a nation, typically a province or region (e.g. French in Quebec)
3. Wider communication - A language of wider communication is a language

that may be official or provincial, but more importantly, functions as a medium of communication across language boundaries within a nation (e.g. Hindi in India; Swahili language in East Africa) 4. International - An international language functions as a medium of communication across national boundaries (e.g. English)
5. Capital - A capital language functions as a prominent language in and

around a national capital (e.g. Dutch and French in Brussels)

6. Group - A group language functions as a conventional language among the

members of a single cultural or ethnic group (e.g. Hebrew amongst the Jews)
7. Educational - An educational language functions as a medium of

instruction in primary and secondary schools on a regional or national basis (Urdu in West Pakistan and Bengali in East Pakistan)
8. School subject - A school subject language is a language that is taught as a

subject in secondary school or higher education (e.g. Latin and Ancient Greek in English schools)
9. Literary - A literary language functions as a language for literary or

scholarly purposes (Ancient Greek)

10. Religious - A religious language functions as a language for the ritual

purposes of a particular religion (e.g. Latin for the Latin Rite within the Roman Catholic Church; Arabic for the reading of the Qur'an) Robert Cooper, in reviewing Stewart's list, makes several additions. First, he creates three sub-types of official functions: statutory, working, and symbolic. A statutory language is a language that a government has declared official by law. A working language is a language that a government uses as a medium for daily activities, and a symbolic language is a language that is merely a symbol of the

state. Cooper also adds two functional domains to Stewart's list: mass media and work.
a. Corpus planning

Corpus planning refers to the prescriptive intervention in the forms of a language, whereby planning decisions are made to engineer changes in the structure of the language. Corpus planning activities often arise as the result of beliefs about the adequacy of the form of a language to serve desired functions. Unlike status planning, which is primarily undertaken by administrators and politicians, corpus planning generally involves planners with greater linguistic expertise. There are three traditionally recognized types of corpus planning: graphization, standardization, and modernization. Graphization

Graphization refers to development, selection and modification of scripts and orthographic conventions for a language. The use of writing in a speech community can have lasting sociocultural effects, which include easier transmission of material through generations, communication with larger numbers of people, and a standard against which varieties of spoken language are often compared. Linguist Charles A. Ferguson made two key observations about the results of adopting a writing system. First, the use of writing adds another variety of the language to the communitys repertory. Although written language is often viewed as secondary to spoken language, the vocabulary, grammatical structures and phonological structures of a language often adopt characteristics in the written form that are distinct from the spoken variety. Second, the use of writing often leads to a folk belief that the written language is the real language, and speech is a corruption of it. Written language is viewed as more conservative, while the spoken variety is more susceptible to language change. However, this view ignores the possibility that isolated relic areas of the language may be less innovative than the written form or the written language may have been based on a divergent variety of the spoken language. In establishing a writing system for a language, corpus planners have the option of using an existing system or inventing a new one. The Ainu of Japan chose to adopt the Japanese languages katakana syllabary as the writing system for the

Ainu language. Katakana is designed for a language with a basic CV syllable structure, but Ainu contains many CVC syllables that cannot easily be adapted to this syllabary. As a result, Ainu uses a modified katakana system, in which syllable-final codas are consonants by a subscript version of a katakana symbol that begins with the desired consonant. An example on an invented script includes the development of the Armenian script in 405 AD by St. Mesrop Mashtots. Though the script was modeled after the Greek alphabet, the original script distinguished Armenian from the Greek and Syriac alphabets of the neighboring peoples. Standardization

Standardization is the process by which one variety of a language takes precedence over other social and regional dialects of a language. This variety comes to be understood as supra-dialectal and the best form of the language. The choice of which language takes precedence has important societal consequences, as it confers privilege upon speakers whose spoken and written dialect conforms closest to the chosen standard. The standard that is chosen as the norm is generally spoken by the most powerful social group within the society, and is imposed upon the less powerful groups as the form to emulate. This often reinforces the dominance of the powerful social group and makes the standard norm necessary for socioeconomic mobility. In practice, standardization generally entails increasing the uniformity of the norm, as well as the codification of the norm. The history of English provides an example of standardization occurring over an extended time period, without formally recognized language planning. The standardization process began when William Caxton introduced the printing press in England in 1476. This was the accompanied by the adoption of the south-east Midlands variety of English, spoken in London, as the print language. Because of the dialects use for administrative and literary purposes, this variety became entrenched as the prestigious variety of English. After the creation of grammars and dictionaries in the 18th century, the rise of print capitalism, industrialization, urbanization, and mass education led to the dissemination of this dialect as the standard norm for the English language.

Modernization

Modernization is a form of language planning that occurs when a language needs to expand its resources to meet functions. Modernization often occurs when a language undergoes a shift in status, such as when a country gains independence from a colonial power or when there is a change in the language education policy. The most significant force in modernization is the expansion of the lexicon, which allows the language to discuss topics in modern semantic domains. Language planners generally focus on creating new lists and glossaries to describe new technical terms, but it is also necessary to ensure that the new terms are consistently used by the appropriate sectors within society. While some languages such as Japanese and Hungarian have experienced rapid lexical expansion to meet the demands of modernization, other languages such as Hindi and Arabic have failed to do so. Rapid lexical expansion is aided by the use of new terms in textbooks and professional publications, as well as frequent use among specialists. Issues of linguistic purism often play a significant role in lexical expansion, but technical vocabulary can be effective within a language, regardless of whether it comes from the languages own process of word formation or from heavy borrowing from another language. While Hungarian has almost exclusively used language-internal processes to create new lexical items, Japanese has borrowed extensively from English to derive new words as part of its modernization.
a. Acquisition planning

Acquisition planning is a type of language planning in which a national, state or local government system aims to influence aspects of language, such as language status, distribution and literacy through education. Acquisition planning can also be used by non-governmental organizations, but it is more commonly associated with government planning. Frequently, acquisition planning is integrated into a larger language planning process in which the statuses of languages are evaluated, corpuses are revised and the changes are finally introduced to society on a national, state or local level through education systems, ranging from primary schools to universities. This process of change can entail a variety of modifications, such as an alteration in student textbook formatting, a change in methods of teaching an official language

or the development of a bilingual language program, only to name a few. For example, if a government decides to raise the status level of a certain language or change its level of prestige, it can establish a law that requires teachers to teach only in this language or that textbooks are written using only this languages script. This, in turn, would support the elevation of the languages status or could increase its prestige. In this way, acquisition planning is often used to promote language revitalization, which can change a languages status or reverse a language shift, or to promote linguistic purism. In a case where a government revises a corpus, new dictionaries and educational materials will need to be revised in schools in order to maintain effective language acquisition.

A. Seven Criteria That May Be Useful In Discussing Different Kinds Of Language Based on Bell. As discussed above, a language may have varieties used by people from a particular geographic area or social class. They differ at least in three aspects: pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. The varieties of a language are commonly known as dialects. Of the dialects, there must be one that receives higher prestige than the others as it is used in governmental activities and education; and is widely used by the people in various areas of fields. This higher dialect is called a standard dialect and the lower dialect is named as nonstandard dialect. A standard dialect also known as standard language is a dialect that is supported by institutions. Such institutional support may include government recognition or designation; presentation as being the "correct" form of a language in schools; published grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks that set forth a "correct" spoken and written form; and an extensive formal literature that employs that dialect (prose, poetry, nonfiction, etc.). There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing language (standard) from dialects (nonstandard), although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. One attempt has already been proposed by R.T. Bell (1976: 147-57) who has listed seven criteria that may be useful in discussing different kinds of languages. These criteria consisting of standardization, vitality, historicity,

autonomy, reduction, mixture, and de facto norms, may be used to distinguish one type of language from another.

Standardization refers to the process by which a language has been codified in some way that usually involves the development of such things as grammars and dictionaries. Governments sometimes very deliberately involve themselves in the standardization process by establishing official bodies of one kind or another to regulate language matters or to encourage changes which are felt desirable. Standardization is sometimes deliberately undertaken quite rapidly for political reasons. Besides, it is also obviously one which attempts either to reduce or eliminate diversity and variety. The standardization performs a variety of functions that are to unify individuals and groups within a larger community while at the same time separating the community that results from other communication; to reflect and symbolize some kind of identity; and to give prestige to the speakers marking off those who employ it from those who do not.

Vitality refers to the existence of a living community of speakers. This criterion can be used to distinguish languages that are alive from those that are dead. Many languages while not dead yet, nevertheless are palpably dying: the number of people who speak them diminishes drastically each year and the process seems irreversible, so that the best one can say of their vitality is that it is flagging. A language can remain a considerable force even after it is dead, that is, even after it is no longer spoken as anyones first language and exists almost exclusively in one or more written forms, knowledge of which is acquired only through formal education. Classical Greek and Latin still have considerable prestige in the Western world, and speakers of many modern languages continue to draw on them in a variety of ways.

Historicity refers to the fact that a particular group of people finds a sense of identity through using a particular language: it belongs to them. Social, political, religious, or ethnic ties may also be important for the group, but the bond provided by a common language may prove to be the strongest tie of all. Historicity can be long-standing: speakers of the

different varieties of colloquial Arabic make much of a common linguistic ancestry, as obviously do speakers of Chinese. Autonomy is an interesting concept because it is really one of feeling. A language must be felt by its speakers to be different from other languages. However, this is a very subjective criterion. Ukrainians say their language is not Russian. Some speakers of Black English maintain that their language is not a variety of English but is a separate language in its own right. In contrast, speakers of Cantonese and Mandarin deny that they speak different languages: they maintain that Cantonese and Mandarin are not autonomous languages but are just two varieties of Chinese.

Reduction refers to the fact that a particular variety may be regarded as a sub-variety rather than as an independent entity. Speakers of Cockney will almost certainly say that they speak a variety of English, will admit that they are not representative speakers of English, and will recognize the existence of other varieties with equivalent subordinate status. Sometimes the reduction is in the kinds of opportunities afforded to users of the variety. For example, there may be a reduction of resources; that is, the variety may lack a writing system. Or there may be considerable restrictions in use; e.g., pidgin languages are much reduced in the functions they serve in society in contrast to standardized languages.

Mixture refers to feelings speakers have about the purity of the variety they speak. This criterion appears to be more important to speakers of some languages than of others, e.g., more important to speakers of French and German than to speakers of English. However, it partly explains why speakers of pidgins and creoles have difficulty in classifying what they speak as full languages: these varieties are, in certain respects, quite obviously mixed, and the people who speak them often feel that the varieties are neither one thing nor another, but rather are debased, deficient, degenerate, or marginal varieties of some other standard language.

De facto norms refer to the feeling that many speakers have that there are both good speakers and poor speakers and that the good speakers represent the norms of proper usage. Sometimes this means focusing on

one particular sub- variety as representing the best usage. Standards must not only be established (by the first criterion above), but they must also be observed. When all the speakers of a language feel that it is badly spoken or badly written almost everywhere, that language may have considerable difficulty in surviving; in fact, such a feeling is often associated with a language that is dying. Concern with the norms of linguistic behavior may become very important among specific segments of society. For example, so far as English is concerned, there is a quite profitable industry devoted to telling people how they should behave linguistically, what it is correct to say, what to avoid saying, and so on. Peoples feelings about norms have important consequences for an understanding of both variation and change in language. Trying to decide whether something is or is not a language or in what ways languages are alike and different can be quite troublesome. There is usually little controversy over the fact that they are either regional or social varieties of something that is widely acknowledged to be a language. That is true even of the relationship of Cantonese and Mandarin to Chinese if the latter is given a generous interpretation as a language. Notice though that it does not help us solve the Ukrainian Russian problem, with Ukrainians insisting that what they speak is a separate language and Russians tending to downplay it as a dialect of Russian. Some people are also aware that the standard variety of any language is actually only the preferred dialect of that language: Parisian French and Florentian Italian. It is the variety that has been chosen for some reason, perhaps political, social, or economic, or some combination of reasons, to serve as either the model or the norm for other varieties. As a result, the standard is often not called a dialect at all, but is regarded as the language itself. One consequence is that all other varieties become related to that standard in some way and may be regarded as dialects of that standard (Wardhaugh, 1986: 32-6).

CHAPTER III DISCUSSSION

A. The Analysis of Javanese

Seven criteria according Bell that use to analyze Javanese Language: Standardization of Javanese. In Javanese teaching history, Javanese teaching happened since before proclamation of independence. On era before proclamation of independence, Javanese was made as language medium in education and subject. After proclamation of independence, 17th August 1945 language medium is Indonesians, and Javanese gets to be made by language medium at elementary school on brazes startup. As subject, Javanese is thought at SD and SLTP. From this explanation above, Javanese performs a variety of functions that are to unify individuals and groups within a larger community while at the same time separating the community that results from other communication; to reflect and symbolize some kind of identity; and to give prestige to the speakers marking off those who employ it from those who do not. Historicity of Javanese. Old Javanese While evidence of writing in Java dates to the Sanskrit "Tarumanegara inscription" of 450, the oldest example written entirely in Javanese, called the "Sukabumi inscription", is dated March 25, 804. This inscription, located in the district of Pare in the Kediri regency of East Java, is actually a copy of the original, dated some 120 years earlier; only this copy has been preserved. Its contents concern the construction of a dam for an irrigation canal near the river r Harijing (nowadays Srinjing). This inscription is the last of its kind to be written using Pallava script; all consequent examples are written using Javanese script.

The 8th and 9th centuries are marked with the emergence of the Javanese literary tradition with Sang Hyang Kamahayanikan, a Buddhist treatise and the Kakawin Rmyaa , a Javanese rendering in Indian metres of the Vishnuistic Sanskrit epic, Rmyaa. Although Javanese as a written language appeared considerably later than Malay (extant in the 7th century), the Javanese literary tradition is continuous from its inception to present day. The oldest works, such as the above mentioned Rmyaa, and a Javanese rendering of the Indian Mahabharata epic are studied assiduously today. The expansion of the Javanese culture, including Javanese script and language, began in 1293 with the eastward push of the Hindu Buddhist East-Javanese Empire Majapahit, toward Madura and Bali. The Javanese campaign in Bali in 1363 has had a deep and lasting impact. With the introduction of the Javanese administration, Javanese replaced Balinese as the language of administration and literature. Though the Balinese people preserved much of the older literature of Java and even created their own in Javanese idioms, Balinese ceased to be written until the 19th century. Middle Javanese The Majapahit Empire also saw the rise of a new language, Middle Javanese, which is an intermediate form between Old Javanese and New Javanese. In fact, Middle Javanese is so similar to New Javanese that works written in Middle Javanese should be easily comprehended by Modern Javanese speakers who are well acquainted with literary Javanese. New Javanese In the 16th century a new era in Javanese history began with the rise of the Islamic Central Javanese Mataram Sultanate, originally a vassal state of Majapahit. Ironically, the Mataram Empire rose as

an Islamic kingdom which sought revenge for the demise of the Hindu Majapahit Empire by first crushing Demak, the first Javanese Islamic kingdom. Javanese culture spread westward as Mataram conquered many previously Sundanese areas in western parts of Java; and Javanese became the dominant language in more than a third of this area. As in Bali, the Sundanese language ceased to be written until the 19th century. In the meantime it was heavily influenced by Javanese, and some 40% of Sundanese vocabulary is believed to have been derived from Javanese. Though Islamic in name, the Mataram II empire preserved many elements of the older culture, incorporating them into the new religion. This is the reason why Javanese script is still in use as opposed to the writing of Old-Malay for example. After the Malays were converted, they dropped their form of indigenous writing and changed to a form of the "script of the Divine", the Arabic script. In addition to the rise of Islam, the 16th century saw the emergence of the New Javanese language. The first Islamic documents in Javanese were already written in New Javanese, although still in antiquated idioms and with numerous Arabic loanwords. This is to be expected as these early New Javanese documents are Islamic treatises. Later, intensive contacts with the Dutch and with other Indonesians gave rise to a simplified form of Javanese and influx of foreign loanwords. Modern Javanese Some scholars dub the spoken form of Javanese in the 20th century Modern Javanese, although it is essentially still the same language as New Javanese. Vitality of Javanese.

The user of Javanese is falling off, that is caused by some factor. Javanese teaching in family, and there is an abashment in using Javanese (language) by Javanese (person). Autonomy of Javanese. Javanese (language) that used by Javanese (person) is different with the other vernaculars. Javanese has three strata which has not by the other vernacular. They are: krama, madya, and ngoko. Mixture of Javanese. Javanese has three strata, such as ngoko. It is used by Javanese (person) to communicate with other Javanese (person) who is in same strata. It is usually used in communication with our close friend. De facto norms of Javanese. When Javanese (person) use Javanese (language), they know that there is good and bad speakers. For example when child communicate with their parents, they should communicate by using Javanese (language) in kromo version. Because it showed a polite behavior in communicate with their parents. If they use ngoko, they gave the cut direct and it show that they are a bad speakers .
A. The Reasons of Governments Policy about Javanese Language

Javanese Language as subject in elementary and junior high school Javanese user is the greatest language user in Indonesia. The amount reaches 70.000.000 lives at all islands in Indonesia. It is caused by the history of Majapahit kingdom. They have a large colony region in Indonesia. They have Patih Gajamada who has a promise to unify the archipelago. This promise is known as Sumpah Palapa. Majapahit kingdom is a kingdom that from Mojokerto East Java. So they bring Javanese language to their colony religion.

Government has plan and policy that Javanese language used as subject in educational sector especially in elementary and junior high school. The government has a plan to keep up the Javanese culture and also Javanese language. Javanese language removed as subject. Government removed Javanese language because, they think that every region has own vernacular. So government removed Javanese language as subject in elementary school and junior high school. This plan is raised to keep the vernacular in each region. Because the user of vernacular in each region didnt want to use Javanese and they want to keep their own vernacular. So government removed Javanese language as subject of study in elementary and junior high school. Javanese language as Muatan Lokal in Java Island. Undang Undang Nomor : 22 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah, kewenangan Pemerintah di bidang Bahasa dan Sastra telah menjadi kewenangan dan tanggung jawab daerah, dengan demikian diharapkan Bahasa dan Sastra Daerah dapat di lestarikan dan dikembangkan untuk memperkaya khasanah budaya Nasiona. The third Javanese congress at Yogyakarta raises some statement about the important of Teaching Javanese Language, and gave message to keep up the Javanese Language and its taught in elementary, junior and senior high school. The Governor of Central Java excrete decision letter of governor (SK Gubernur) No.895.5/01/2005 dated 23 february 2005. Those decision letter (SK) regulate about curriculum staring Javanese language subject in SMA/SMALB/SMK/MA. The operated of the law no.22 year 1999 about local government, so the central governments authority in local language and literature sectors become the local governments authority automatically. So, each region have authority to take vernacular in education sector as muatan local and in Java island, Javanese language become compulsory subject as Muatan Lokal.

The purposes of this policy are to develop Javanese language competence in order to eternal the usage of Javanese language and to implant good attitude to the students so they are able to appreciate their own culture.

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSSION Language planning is generally defined as an intervention intended to influence language or language use.

R.T. Bell (1976: 147-57) who has listed seven criteria that may be useful in discussing different kinds of languages. These criteria consisting of standardization, vitality, historicity, autonomy, reduction, mixture, and de facto norms, may be used to distinguish one type of language from another.

Javanese language is the identity of Javanese. Although there are Indonesian as national language, and English; Japanese; etc as foreign language.

THE ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ABOUT PELAJARAN BAHASA JAWA (THE STUDY OF JAVANESE LANGUAGE) SOCIOLINGUISTIC Lecturer: M. Saibani Wiyatno, S.Pd., M.Pd.

By: Indah Wafiroh Kristian Adi Candra Miftakhul Chasanah (0871) (087155) (0871)

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT 2008-E SEKOLAH TINGGI KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN PERSATUAN GURU REPUBLIK INDONESIA JOMBANG 2011

Bibliography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javanese_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning www.anneahira.com/kamus-jawa-6835.htm Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3), 199-222. Cooper, R. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In Cobarrubias, J. & Fishman, J.A. (eds.). Progress in language planning. Berlin: Mouton, 269-289. Herriman, M., & Burnaby, B. (1996). Language policies in English-dominant countries. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.