Selektor yang mempengaruhi sistem panggilan kekeluargaan masyarakat Telugu
List of Authors
  • Harishon Radzi , Mohammad Fadzeli Jaafar , Prithini Deepa Kaliappan

Keyword
  • selektor, sistem panggilan, bentuk panggilan, masyarakat Telugu

Abstract
  • Sistem panggilan kekeluargaan masyarakat Telugu berkait rapat dengan selektor yang turut dipengaruhi oleh budaya masyarakat itu. Selektor boleh didefinisikan sebagai agen yang mempengaruhi penggunaan bentuk panggilan kekeluargaan. Dengan itu, pengkaji meneroka selektor masyarakat Telugu yang turut mempengaruhi pemilihan bentuk panggilan kekeluargaan di kawasan Bagan Datuk, Perak. Kaedah temu bual separa berstruktur dan pemerhatian tidak turut serta dijalankan ke atas 18 orang informan Telugu yang terdiri daripada dua kategori umur yang berbeza, iaitu 18 hingga 24 tahun dan 40 hingga 60 tahun. Informan tersebut adalah daripada tiga tahap kasta iaitu kasta atasan, kasta pertengahan dan kasta bawahan. Setiap tahap kasta diwakili oleh enam orang informan iaitu tiga orang dewasa tua dan tiga orang dewasa muda. Setiap selektor dihuraikan mengikut peraturan dalam teori Ervin Tripp (1986). Peraturan Alternasi (Alternation Rules) ialah peraturan yang mengetengahkan bagaimana pemilihan bentuk panggilan dilakukan, Peraturan Kemunculan Bersama (Co-Occurance Rules) pula ialah bentuk panggilan yang dipilih berdasarkan konteks komunikasi. Manakala Peraturan Urutan (Sequencing Rules) ialah aturan yang ditetapkan mengikut urutan. Hasil kajian menunjukkan sistem panggilan kekeluargaan masyarakat Telugu dipengaruhi oleh selektor kasta, umur, keakraban hubungan, jantina dan hubungan kekerabatan. Selektor yang dominan ialah selektor jantina yang mana semua informan mengiyakan pengaruh selektor tersebut dan pemilihan bentuk panggilan yang kurang sesuai membayangkan kekurangan asuhan daripada keluarga. Maka, kajian seperti ini penting dalam memberikan kesedaran kepada generasi muda tentang kepentingan sistem panggilan kekeluargaan kerana ia melambangkan identiti masyarakat Telugu.

Reference
  • 1. Abraham Kwesi Bisilki. (2017). A sociolinguistics analysis kinship term in likpakpaln (Konkomba). Ghana Journal of Linguistics 6(3) 33-35.
    2. Agustinus Semiun. (2019). A study on the address and kinship terms in kempo speech of manggarai language in West Flores, Indonesia.Communication and Linguistic Studies 4 (4), 108-117.
    3. Aliakbari, Mohammad & Toni, Arman. (2008).The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study. Linguistik Online. 35 (2). 55-72
    4. Afful.J.B.A. (2006). Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language and Intercultural Communication 6(1) 76–91.
    5. Asmah Hj. Omar. (2008). Kaedah Penyelidikan Bahasa di Lapangan Edisi Kedua. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
    6. Babbie et al. (1995). Adventures in Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
    7. Babu, K.D. (2016). Language shift and maintenance among the Telugu community in the Klang Valley. (Master dissertation). University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    8. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    9. Buchstaller et al. (2013). Population Sample in Podesva, Robert J. Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    10. Boyd, C.O. (2001). Phenomenology the Method. In Munhall, P.L. (Ed.), Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective 34(2) 93–122.
    11. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press.New York.
    12. Crawford, J. and Irving, C. (2009). Information literacy in the workplace: a qualitative exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 41(1) 29-38.
    13. Crouch, M & McKenzie, H. (2006).The logic of small samples in interview based qualitative research. Social Science Information 45(3) 18-22.
    14. David, M. K., & Dealwis, C. (2006). Close and dense networks: Do they lead to maintenance of the ethnic language? Focus on the Telegu community in Kuching, Sarawak. Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies.
    15. Tate, D. J. M. (2008). The Malaysian Indians: History, Problems and Future. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.
    16. Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of addresses and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33 (2) 255-274.
    17. Engstrom M. (2012). Family processes in kinship care. Normal family processes: Growing Diversity and Complexity 45(1) 196-221.
    18. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). Sociolinguistic Rules of Address. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
    19. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1986). On Sociolinguistics Rules: Alternation and Co-occurrence. New York: Holt, Rinehart ands Winston, Inc.
    20. Grayson, J. P. (1997). Institutional failure or student choice? The retention of adult students in Atkinson college.The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 11(2)7–30
    21. Greig, A, & Taylor, J. (1999).Doing Research with Children. London: Sage.
    22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (2nd ed) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    23. Hwang. (1991).Terms of Address.Intercultural Communication Studies 2(1) 117.
    24. Jaworski A, Galasinski D. (2000). Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies 2(1) 35-53.
    25. Jayapal.S. (1986). Address terms in Tamil. Indian Linguistics, 47(1-4) 7-15.
    26. Kalthum Ibrahim & Sabariah Mohd Ghani, (2016). Kata Panggilan Kekeluargaan oleh Mahasiswa dari Pantai Timur Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: Satu Kajian Sosiolinguistik. Jurnal Linguistik 20(1) 001-009.
    27. Keshavarz, M.H. (2001). The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address.International Journal SocioLanguage. 148(2), 5- 18.
    28. Kroeber. (1950). Caste' in Edwin, Seligman and Johnson Alvin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Sciences', MacMillan Company, New York.
    29. Leech, G. (1999). The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American And British English Conversation.Studies In Honor Of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam.
    30. Liu, F., & Maitlis, S. (2010). Nonparticipant Observation. In Albert J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, 610-612. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
    31. Marohaini Yusoff. (2001). Penyelidikan Kualitatif Pengalaman Kerja Lapangan Kajian, 87–119. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya
    32. Fougère, M. (2008). Adaptation and Identity. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (2 ed., pp. 187-203). Continuum.
    33. Nabila Krisnanda. (2014). Addressing system of kinship terms in Javanese society. A case study among Javanese people in Semarang. Journal of English Language, Culture and Literature 6(4) 211-233.
    34. Nafisah Abd Hamid. (2015). Kesantunan Bahasa –Penggunaan Sistem Sapaan Dan Eufemisme Dalam Komunikasi. Perkongsian Profesional Bagi Guru-Guru Permulaan. Singapura: Pusat Bahasa Melayu Singapura, Kementerian Pendidikan Singapura.
    35. Naidu, S. A. (2013). History of generations of Telugus in Malaysia. Telugu Malaysia- Heritage & News. http://www.telugu-malaysia.com/2013/05/history-of-telugus-in-malaysia.html
    36. Nor Hashimah Hj Jalaluddin, Harishon Radzi, Maslida Yusof, Sa`Adiah Ma`Alip, Raja Masittah Raja Ariffin.(2005). Sistem Panggilan Dalam Keluarga Melayu: Satu Dokumentasi: 1-263.
    37. Oyetade, S. O. (1995). A sociolinguistic analysis of address forms in Yoruba. Language in Society, 24(4) 515–535.
    38. Mashiri, Pedzisai. 1999. Terms of address in shona: a sociolinguistic approach. Zambezia 26(1). 93–110.
    39. P.M Girish. (2003). Castelect: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Language in India 3(8) 1-21
    40. Rahul Sharma. (2013). Data-driven equivalence checking. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 48(10), 391-406.
    41. Rajeswari S. (2016).The Realization of Address Terms in Telugu in Andra Pradesh. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development. 3(6) 122-125.
    42. Ramakirshna Reddy. (1973). Dravidian and Other Language Families. Current State of Knowledge. Andra University.
    43. Reniwati & Ab Razak Ab Karim. (2015). Kata Sapaan Separa Rasmi dalam masyarakat Minangkabau di Kabubaten 50 Kota dan Daerah Rembau: Suatu kajian perbandingan. International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation (IMAN) 3(2): 63-70.
    44. Sa’adiah Ma`Alip, Rahilah Omar. (2016.) Pemilihan Bahasa Masyarakat Chetti Di Melaka. International Seminar on Language Maintenance and Shift (Lamas) 6(3) 443-524.
    45. Sa’adiah Ma’alip & Teo Kok Seong. (2019). Komunikasi antara keluarga. Bentuk panggilan kekeluargaan masyarakat orang asli che wong. Jurnal Melayu Bil 18 (2) 100-115.
    46. Sastika Seli. (2016). Bentuk Sapaan Kekerabatan Dalam Bahasa Rawas Di Kecamatan Rawas Ilir Desa Tanjung Raja : Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya Keempat Belas, 589.
    47. Satish Kumar Nadimpalli et al. (2014). Kinship Terms in Telugu and English. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention 3(4) 44-46.
    48. Shanmuganathan, T. (2010). Language attrition and maintenance of the Telugu community in Malaysia. 150 years Malaysian Telugu Heritage. pp. 48 - 52. Telugu Association of Malaysia.
    49. Shareen Joshi et al. (2018).Oversized Solutions to Big Problems: The Political Economy of Partnerships and Environmental Cleanup in India. Environmental Development 28(4), 3-18.
    50. S. Nathesan. (2007). Unsur Maskulin dalam Bahasa. Dewan Bahasa, 7(3), 10 – 12.
    51. Sinnappah Arasaratnam. (1970). Indians in Malaysia and Singapore. London: Oxford University Press.
    52. Upender Maloth. (2014).The Linguistic and Cultural Identity of Lambada in Andhra Pradesh: A Sociocultural Study. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 772.
    53. Waites. (2009). Critique of Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity In Human Rights Discourse: Global Queer Politics Beyond The Yogyakarta Principle, in K. Kollman and M. Waites (eds.), The Global Politics of Human Rights, Special Issue, Contemporary Politics 15(1) 137–56.
    54. Wardhaugh. (2006).Introduction to Sociolinguistics 5th ed. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publication.