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