Name: Rahmadian Shodiqi

Student Number: 231073013

Answer

1.1 I believe that a person's origin can be inferred from their language use based on
factors like accent, etc. This has an impact on how language is used in connection
to society.
1.2 The earliest loan words from English to Indonesian, such as "teknologi,"
"komputer," "internet," and so on, are instances of how people use Indonesian in
their daily lives, in my opinion. Teenagers and younger generations frequently
employ both slang and colloquialisms. For instance, the words "kece" and "galau"
denote coolness and anxiety, respectively, and "santuy" and relaxation, respectively.
East Javanese and Central Javanese dialects are two examples of the three ways that
local dialects are used in Indonesia.

2. Language variation is influenced by a number of factors, such as socialization,

identity, group membership, and power. An individual's identity is shaped by their
interactions with others and is their realized sense of self. Various elements can
impact an individual's identity, including race, ethnicity, gender, religion,
occupation, physical location, social class, kinship, and leisure activities. In order to
deal with these issues and relate to other group members for certain goals, identity
is developed. These elements serve as their distinguishing traits. An identity can
also change because it can occasionally be changed quite simply. On the other
hand, it can also remain unchanged if change is prohibited or if the identity must be
preserved at any costs.

4.a Speech community is an idea that is hard to grasp because it depends on someone
defining what a "group" in society is. 'Group' is a term that social scientists use in a
 variety of contexts. Some examples include small groups, corporate groups, ethnic
groups, reference groups, and interest groups. They frequently have a very precise
conception of groups as discrete, autonomous social structure units. Social
scientists that embrace a more structural perspective typically view groups as
relative notions, with each group having relevance primarily in respect to other
groups that are directly contrasted and of a similar size. For instance, there are
communities that speak English because there are communities that speak French
and German; there are communities that speak Texas because there are
communities that speak London and Boston; there are communities that speak
Harvard because there are communities that speak Oxford and Berkeley; there are
communities that speak Chicano because there are communities that speak Spanish
and English; and so on.
4.b Since I was born and still reside in East Java, I do belong to a speech community.
Speech communities differ greatly in terms of vocabulary, grammar, and
pronunciation. Probolinggo and Surabaya have different speech communities as a
result of this. Even though I am not a member of the Tengger Tribe, Probolinggo is
commonly associated with the people who reside in the Mount Bromo region. In
my social life, I frequently run into Madurese in Probolinggo, my neighborhood.
My mother and father are fluent in Madurese, but I struggle to communicate in the
language since my parents didn't teach me the language until after I graduated from
school. Javanese was a language I learned only from my parents and the school
when I was younger.
4.c Probolinggo's Javanese speech community. Because it is determined from a journal
article titled "Lexical and Phonological Differences in Javanese in Probolinggo,
Surabaya, and Ngawi, Indonesia" that the central region of Java Province has the
least lexical Javanese language, while the western and eastern regions of East Java
have the most lexical language. Lexical differences between Surabaya and Ngawi
in Probolinggo result in one dialect and two subdialects, while phonological
differences between Surabaya and Ngawi in Probolinggo result in three utterances.
5.a The goal of Trudgill and Shuy's research is to relate language use to socioeconomic
status.
5.b Trudgill (1974) identified five socioeconomic classes based on language variation
in Norwich, England: middle middle class (MMC), lower middle class (LMC),
upper working class (UWC), middle working class (MWC), and lower working
class (LWC). In addition to 10 school-age children from two schools, Trudgill
conducted interviews with ten speakers from each of Norwich's five electoral
wards. The next step involved classifying these sixty informants based on six
variables, each of which was graded on a six-point rating scale (0–5): occupation,
education, income, kind of housing, neighborhood, and father's line of work.
Trudgill chose the cut-off points for each of his classes. Using a sample of 702
informants, Shuy's Detroit study (Shuy et al., 1968) aimed to sample the speech of
that metropolis. Over a ten-week period, eleven field workers gathered the data
using a questionnaire. Three sets of criteria were used to allocate each of their
interviewees to a socioeconomic class: place of residence, occupation, and level of
education. Every informant was assigned a social class, each of them was ranked on
a six- or seven-point scale for each set, and the rankings were weighted (multiplied
by five for education, nine for occupation, and six for domicile).
5.c There is a difference in linguistic behavior between people at the top and bottom of
Trudgill's 30-point scale, according to his study of linguistic variation in Norwich,
England (Trudgill, 1974). However, because of the underlying circularity, this
difference has not been established entirely independently. Four social class
classifications were utilized in Shuy's Detroit study (Shuy et al., 1968): upper
middle class, identified by scores between 20 and 48; lower middle class, identified
by scores between 49 and 77; upper working class, identified by scores between 78
and 106; and lower working class, identified by scores between 107 and 134.
5.d The research conducted by Trudgill and Shuy is comparable in that both use
scores to map social class from informant interviews. Trudgill uses five social
classes: upper working class (UWC), middle working class (MWC), lower
working class (LWC), and middle middle class (MMC). Four social class
designations were utilized, based on Shuy's research: upper middle class (score
range of 20–48); lower middle class (score range of 49–77); upper working class
(score range of 78–106); and lower working class (score range of 107–134). The
research methodologies used by Trudgill and Shuy differ from one another. Ten
speakers from each of Norwich's five electoral districts as well as ten school-age
children from two schools participated in the interviews for Trudgill's study. The
next step involved classifying these sixty informants according to six criteria:
employment, education, income, kind of housing, location, and father's
occupation. Each of these elements was graded on a six-point scale (0–5). The
lines dividing the classes were drawn by Trudgill. He demonstrates a certain
circularity by doing this. Those who utilize specific linguistic elements (e.g., he
goes) more than eighty percent of the time are classified as lower working class.
Those who received a score of six or below on the composite scale are included
in this group, out of a possible total of thirty. Trudgill's middle class people are
always using the he go; individuals with a score of 19 or more tend to exhibit
this tendency. Shuy's study, meanwhile, employed a technique to sample
speeches made in the city by utilizing a sample of 702 informants. Over the
course of ten weeks, eleven field workers gathered data using questionnaires.
Three factors were used to classify each informant to a socioeconomic class:
place of residence, occupation, and level of education. On a six- or seven-point
rating scale for each set, each informant was given a social class assignment, and
the ratings were weighted (multiplied by five for education, nine for
employment, and six for domicile).