Exploring complex diglossia in Javanese society

Abstract

This essay examines diglossia within the Javanese community, highlighting a complex, tiered language structure reflective of social hierarchies, expanding upon Fasold’s concept of double overlapping diglossia. Classic diglossia, as outlined by Ferguson, is contrasted with broader interpretations by Fishman, which have been criticized for overgeneralization. Javanese society showcases an intricate model of diglossia, where Bahasa Indonesia and various forms of Javanese are utilized across different social domains. The study explores the use of High and Low language varieties within Javanese society, specifically in educational and community settings. Research indicates that language use is adaptive, with choices reflecting the interplay between formality, social relationships, and educational contexts. Despite the depth of current studies, further exploration is needed to understand the impact of global languages on traditional diglossic practices, especially among the youth. This essay proposes investigating how global trends and digital communication influence the Javanese language’s future trajectory, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of linguistic evolution in Javanese society amid globalization.

Keywords:

• Bilingualism in Indonesia
• high varieties
• low varieties
• language use
• Javanese diglossia
• linguistic landscape
• triglossia

REVIEWER EDITOR:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

SUBJECT:

• Communication Theory
• Sociolinguistics; Language & Linguistics

Introduction

This essay aims to discover how diglossia is exemplified and expanded within the multifaceted linguistic landscape of Javanese society. Previous theories about diglossia such as classic diglossia Ferguson (1959) and extended diglossia by Fishman (1967), while informative, have left a gap in fully explaining the multifaceted nature of Javanese language use across social hierarchies. Hence, the central discovery discussed here concerns the linguistic landscape within Javanese communities, which reflects Fasold’s (1984) theory of double overlapping diglossia. This concept describes a setting where various language forms coexist within a single community, each fulfilling distinct yet interrelated functions. The justification for this focus stems from the compelling way in which Javanese diglossia encapsulates not just a binary linguistic division but a complex, tiered structure of language use that reflects and reinforces social hierarchies. Such a nuanced understanding of diglossia in Javanese society is crucial for sociolinguistics, offering a window into how language functions as a tool for both everyday communication and the maintenance of cultural identity.

The novelty of this approach lies in its comprehensive examination of the tiered language structure in Javanese society, moving beyond the traditional binary understanding of diglossia. This study delves into how these language levels are not only a means of communication but also a reflection and reinforcement of the existing social stratification, thus offering fresh insights into the sociolinguistic fabric of the community. The significance of this investigation is underlined by its potential contribution to sociolinguistics, particularly in understanding how language operates as a crucial instrument for daily interaction and cultural identity preservation within Javanese communities. By incorporating a detailed review of past research and articulating the unique aspects of this study, the introduction sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of diglossia that promises to enrich the discourse on language and society in Java and beyond.

Classic diglossia

The concept of diglossia has been a subject of interest in sociolinguistic research, leading to significant findings on how language varieties coexist within a community. The term gained prominence through the work of Ferguson (1959), who described it as a stable linguistic situation in which two dialects of the same language are used within a single community for distinct functions: a High Variety (H) for formal, official, and literary contexts, and a Low Variety (L) for everyday informal interactions. By distinguishing between High and Low Varieties of language, Ferguson’s model provides clarity and a robust structure for examining the interplay between language and social hierarchy, particularly highlighting the role of language in reflecting societal norms and educational contexts.

Despite its clear advantages, the model has been critiqued for potentially oversimplifying the complexities of language use, as it might not fully encapsulate the fluidity between language registers or the nuanced dynamics of multilingual societies where more than two language varieties coexist (Gumperz, 1962). Moreover, Gumperz (1962) also saw Ferguson’s binary classification as somewhat static, possibly not accounting for the evolution and adaptation of language over time, nor fully considering the active social processes that influence language valuation and choice. These critiques suggest the need for more nuanced models that can account for the spectrum of linguistic variations and the socio-cultural factors that contribute to language change, thereby offering a more dynamic understanding of language use in society.

Extended diglossia

Building on the critiques of Gumperz, Fishman (1967) offered an evolutionary step in the conceptualization of diglossia, aiming to address some of its previously noted limitations. He agreed with Ferguson on the existence of High (H) and Low (L) varieties but expanded the scope of these categories. He also redefined the H variety as not just a literary or formal mode of speech but as one encompassing all domains where written and formal spoken language is used and supported by major institutions; meanwhile, the L variety was described as the language of casual, intimate, and familial spheres—often the first language learned at home (Fishman, 1967). Fishman’s redefinition of diglossia allowed for the inclusion of multiple languages or dialects within the same societal context, functioning in complementary and non-conflicting roles.

Fishman’s broader interpretation of diglossia has faced criticism for encompassing unrelated language varieties and equating diglossia with merely the functional use of languages within a society. Critics like Hudson (1980) postulated that the expanded use of ‘dialect’ and the risks of overgeneralizing diglossia, stressing the importance of recognizing the unique sociolinguistic features and roles of language varieties within specific communities. Timm (1981) also argued that Fishman’s approach neglects key aspects of Ferguson’s original criteria, such as shared features and the sequence of language acquisition. Consequently, this approach could potentially lead to classifying nearly any language community as diglossic due to the absence of structural boundaries (Britto, 1986), and expanding the concept of diglossia to the extent that it becomes synonymous with bilingualism reduces its effectiveness by ignoring the genetic relationship between language varieties (Winford, 1985). These perspectives dovetail with Ferguson’s own view, who, in a later clarification in 1991, indicated that his initial introduction of diglossia was not intended to address every form of multilingualism or language variation but was focused on a more restricted scenario of two language varieties (Ferguson, 1991). Ferguson’s clarification reaffirms the importance of a more measured application of the diglossia concept, suggesting that post-Fergusonian expansions of the term might not align with the concept’s original intent and could dilute its descriptive power.

Broad diglossia

Building upon some linguists’ concerns about the broad application of diglossia, Fishman’s redefinition indeed introduced further intricacies by moving away from the strict binarity that characterized Ferguson’s original model. The notion that a community could be labeled as diglossic when employing more than two languages in distinct functional capacities was met with skepticism by some linguists (Britto, 1986; Denison, 1971; Timm, 1981; Winford, 1985). In this regard, Fasold (1984) took Fishman’s already broadened concept of diglossia and elaborated it to include scenarios where multiple communities might use the same High variety, thereby illuminating the dynamics between standard language and dialects. He addressed the restrictive binary nature of earlier definitions by introducing the idea of complex language arrangements, such as double overlapping diglossia and double-nested diglossia, which allowed for more than two language levels.

Specifically, Fasold (1984) discussed ‘double overlapping diglossia’, also known as triglossia, where three distinct languages within a community perform separate but related roles, functioning complementarily. Additionally, ‘double nested diglossia’ involves sub-layers of language variation within a broader diglossic framework, where both High and Low varieties have their own internal hierarchies. Fasold (1984) also identified ‘linear polyglossia’, a more intricate arrangement suitable for communities with an extensive language selection, allowing individuals to make choices from a continuum of language varieties ranging from High to Low. Through this exploration, Fasold (1984) refined the concept of diglossia to encapsulate not just separate languages but also the nuances of style-shifting and functional language differences. He argued that the rich tapestry of linguistic variations, from colloquial to formal uses, cannot be captured by a simple binary model.

Diglossia in Javanese society

The intricate tapestry of languages within Indonesian society offers a fascinating context for the study of diglossia, particularly within the Javanese community. As the largest ethnic group in Indonesia, the Javanese people present a unique case of language use of broad diglossia model. In Java, the heartland of this ethnic group, language functions as a marker of social hierarchy and formality, with the use of different linguistic levels for various social interactions. This section delves into the manifestation of diglossia in Javanese society, exploring how the High and Low varieties of Javanese and Indonesian are employed across different domains.

In the rich linguistic landscape of Java, diglossia manifests distinctly in the coexistence of Javanese and Bahasa Indonesia. Javanese, serving as the primary language for most locals, is typically reserved for informal oral communication (Sujanto et al., 1979), while Bahasa Indonesia takes the role of the ‘high’ variety (H), employed in formal written and oral contexts, such as education, politics, and commerce (Smith-Hefner, 2009). This demarcation of language use aligns with Ferguson (1959) characterization of diglossia, where Bahasa Indonesia is attributed high prestige and associated with modernity, whereas Javanese holds a ‘low’ variety status (L) with regional dialect perception.

Nevertheless, diglossia in Java’s provinces, specifically in provinces of Central Java, Yogyakarta, and East Java, is notably intricate. In most of the parts of these three provinces, where Javanese is used as the local language which marked with green color (see Figure 1), diglossia presents a more layered picture than the traditional two-variety model. Fishman (1972) acknowledged that a language could display multiple variations within itself, evident in Javanese serving as the Low (L) variety alongside the High (H) variety of Bahasa Indonesia. Moreover, Wardhaugh (2006) noted that Javanese intricately varies in formality, altering its use according to factors such as age, gender, social ties, profession, social standing, wealth, and education. In this case, Javanese is divided into three politeness levels: High (Kromo Inggil) for utmost respect, Middle (Kromo Madyo) for equals, and Low (Ngoko) for casual speech (Poedjosoedarmo, 1968).

Figure 1. Linguistic Landscape in Java and its Surroundings (Source: Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019).

This complex use of diglossia aligns with Fasold’s (1984) broad diglossia’s concept of double overlapping diglossia, where not only does Bahasa Indonesia serve as the High (H) variety for formal discourse and Javanese as the Low (L) variety for informal contexts, but Javanese itself is stratified into three internal levels of formality: High (Kromo Inggil), Middle (Kromo Madyo), and Low (Ngoko), each used based on the social context and the speakers’ relationship. The following examples will illustrate about the given concept. Bahasa Indonesia (as High variety), usually employs affixes in to convey something politely, like in the transitive verb of ‘mem-beritahu-kan’ (to tell) (Sneddon, 2003). In Javanese, depending on the social context, different words express the same idea with varying degrees of formality. ‘Akòn’ is for Low (Ngoko) variety, ‘Kèn’ for Middle (Kromo Madyo) variety, and ‘Dawoh’ for High (Kromo Inggil) (Poedjosoedarmo, 1968). Each Javanese word conveys the same content but differs in the degree of formality and respect it communicates.

Research exploring this phenomenon is relatively scarce; however, the literature does reference the following few pertinent studies that have contributed to our understanding of this issue. A study conducted by Sugiri et al. (2001) in Surabaya city showed that Kromo Inggil is typically used when addressing older individuals, people with a higher educational background, those in higher social positions, or those who are wealthier. On the other hand, Kromo Madyo or Ngoko is more commonly used with younger people, those with less education, lower social status, or who are less wealthy. In family dynamics, wives often speak in Kromo Inggil or Kromo Madyo to their husbands, while husbands tend to use Ngoko when speaking to their wives. Kromo Inggil is also the preferred choice when communicating with fathers, in-laws, and grandparents (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Sociolinguistic Stratification of Javanese Language Varieties Based on Sugiri’s et al. (2001) Findings.

Moreover, a study by Pertiwi et al. (2017) found that along with Indonesian language, the three varieties of the diglossic Javanese language are distinguished by generational use: the first generation predominantly employs the High (H) and Medium (M) varieties as they are familiar with the entire Kromo lexicon. The second generation utilizes all three varieties—High, Medium, and Low (Kromo, Madyo, and Ngoko)—modulating their language choice according to the interlocutor. Conversely, the third generation primarily relies on the Low (Ngoko) variety in everyday communication, a shift attributed to their limited recognition of High variety lexicons. Consequently, the usage of the krama lexicon has diminished, with many High variety terms being replaced by those from the Low variety within the third generation’s vernacular. Such phenomenon consistent with Fishman’s (1964) assertion that language shifts typically materialize by the third generation. This situation arises due to the need for speakers to consider multiple sociocultural aspects when choosing a language, including the speaker’s identity, the person they are communicating with, the subject matter of the discussion, and the context in which the communication takes place (Fishman, 1972).

Moreover, Saddiyah and Rohman’s study (Saddiyah & Rokhman, 2018) in Tegal Regency revealed the pattern of diglossia among senior high school students but with distinct variations tied to educational settings. In formal educational contexts, students adhere to a high variety diglossia, utilizing standardized Indonesian and formal Kromo Inggil Javanese to convey respect. This is in stark contrast to the low variety diglossia of informal settings, where non-standard Indonesian expressions are prevalent, alongside Ngoko Javanese terms for everyday interactions outside of formal classroom environments. These patterns of language use are not just limited to students but also extend to interactions among teachers, between teachers and students, and with the headmaster. This situational language selection within the educational system of Tegal embodies the essence of double overlapping diglossia by Fasold (1984), showcasing a nuanced adaptation of linguistic strategies that go beyond the traditional binary diglossia framework, thereby underlining the complexity and adaptive nature of language practices in educational contexts.

Another study was conducted by Djamereng (2022), who supported the enduring practice of broad diglossia within Javanese communities, particularly in the Sukamaju Subdistrict of North Luwu Regency. Despite being bilingual or even multilingual, with the presence of the local ‘Tae language’ alongside Indonesian and Javanese, the people here maintain the use of their native Javanese for everyday interactions within their community. This pattern exemplifies a double overlapping diglossia scenario (Fasold, 1984), where both the High and Low varieties of Javanese, Tae language, and Indonesian are strategically employed depending on the context. In this setting, the unstandardized, or Low variety of Javanese, is commonly utilized across all age groups for casual communication. Furthermore, Tae language is typically reserved for interactions with people from other ethnic groups and Bahasa Indonesia in formal settings, such as schools, showcasing the functional adaptability of language use in these regions.

Furthermore, a study by Riansi et al. (2023) which was conducted at Junior High School 3 in Cilegon City reveal that both the Indonesian language teacher and the students frequently engage in code-switching and code-mixing during the learning process. Despite the teacher’s native language being Serang Javanese, Indonesian is used predominantly in the classroom, with occasional switches to Arabic for specific functions such as opening or closing lessons. Moreover, the teacher tends to use informal Indonesian interspersed with regional language fragments. According to Estremera (2021), this multilingual approach becomes essential for educators to enhance curriculum comprehension when students face language proficiency and vocabulary limitations, aligning instruction with their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. It also appears to be a strategic choice to develop a stronger connection with students (Nambajimana et al., 2023; Rawan, 2016) as it is vital for effectively conveying messages through various communication channels (Estremera & Gilbas, 2022). This phenomenon exemplifies Fasold’s (1984) concept of double overlapping diglossia, demonstrating how language adaptation in educational settings serves both functional and relational purposes, bridging gaps between formal and informal discourse.

To develop a thorough understanding of the community with diglossic language use, the followingTable 1 provides verbatim examples of speech to illustrate the patterns of code-switching categorized by context and the reasons behind the choice to switch linguistic codes.

Table 1. Examples of code-switching in Javanese community (Azis & Rahmawati, 2021; Saddiyah & Rokhman, 2018; Purnamasari & Sholichah, 2022; Sutarsih, 2016; Sawe & Adhani, 2020; Sudarsono, 2021; Melati & Assidik, 2022; Rizkyna et al., 2021)

Context	Verbatim Speech	Purpose of Switching
School Setting	‘Selamat pagi, bagaimana kabare nak anak?’ Translation: ‘Good morning, how are you students?’ (Source: Azis & Rahmawati, 2021)	To inquiry about students’ condition or well-being in a friendly and caring tone using Javanese Ngoko term (kabare). It is also accompanied with non-standard Indonesian term, ‘nak anak’, which is a bit more colloquial and affectionate. ‘nak’ being an endearing term for a child, often used in more informal or familial contexts.
	‘Buku nopo, Bu?’ Translation: ‘Which book, Ma’am?’ (Source: Saddiyah & Rokhman, 2018)	To convey respect to a teacher by using a polite Javanese term (nopo). ‘Nopo’ is a Javanese Kromo term means ‘which’.
	‘Gon apa, Difa? Bocae nang kantin’. Translation: ‘What happened, Difa? The child is at the canteen’. (Source: Saddiyah & Rokhman, 2018)	To facilitate informal, comfortable communication among students in non-formal school settings. In this sentence, there are several Javanese Tegal Ngoko terms that can be found, including ‘Gon apa’ which means ‘What happened,’ ‘Bocae’ refers to ‘the child,’ and ‘nang kantin’ means ‘at the canteen’.
	‘Aku njaluk minum ya?’ Translation: ‘I’m asking for a drink, okay?’ (Source: Purnamasari & Sholichah, 2022)	To make a request for a drink using Javanese Ngoko term (njaluk) in informal conversations. Further, the use of ‘ya’ at the end serves as a gentle, informal way to seek affirmation or agreement from the listener. This sentence is typical in casual, everyday conversations between friends where the speaker wants to express their need or desire in a courteous manner.
	‘Sekarang halaman berapa ngaji ne?’ Translation: ‘What page are we on for the recitation now?’ (Source: Purnamasari & Sholichah, 2022)	To ascertain the current page number for a reading or recitation activity, usually within friends in the context of a religious or educational setting. The term ‘ngaji ne’ uses Javanese Ngoko level which is the informal and casual speech level.
	‘Oh, kirain wes azan ta, kamu mau ke masjid?’ Translation: ‘Oh, I thought it was already time for the call to prayer, are you going to the mosque?’ (Source: Sutarsih, 2016)	To express a mistaken assumption. The usage of ‘wes’ (already) and ‘kirain’ (I thought) is informal, indicative of the Ngoko level of Javanese, which is used in casual conversation among friends or family.
Community Setting	‘Saya nomor urutan pinten Sus?’ Translation: ‘What is my order number, Sus?’ (Source: Sawe & Adhani, 2020)	To politely ask for quantity or position using Javanese Kromo term, ‘pinten’, which is similar to ‘how many’ or ‘which number’ in English. The use of ‘Sus’ is a colloquial and familiar way of addressing someone, likely short for ‘suster’ (nurse), indicating that the speaker may be in a hospital or clinic setting.
	‘Dereng Bu, biasanya jam lima baru buka’. Translation: ‘Not yet, Ma’am, it usually opens at five’. (Source: Sawe & Adhani, 2020)	To inform the other person that the place in question typically opens at five. The sentence uses Javanese Kromo term (dereng), suggests a polite conversation, potentially with someone of higher social status or someone the speaker wishes to show respect to (for example, customer).
	‘Elha lagi turu. Ojo diganggu’. Translation: ‘Elha is sleeping. Don’t disturb him’. (Source: Sudarsono, 2021)	To convey a request or reminder to respect the person’s rest and not interrupt their sleep. The sentence uses two Javanese Ngoko terms, ‘turu’ (sleep) and ‘Ojo’ (Don’t), indicating that the conversation takes place among close friends, family members, or in relaxed settings.
	‘Dia bilang ngangluh waktu kemarin saya telpon’. Translation: ‘He/She complained when I called him yesterday’. (Source: Sudarsono, 2021)	To convey someone’s reaction or feeling (annoyance) to a past event using Javanese Ngoko term, ‘ngangluh’ (complain), indicating that the conversation has been done in casual settings.
Social Media Setting	‘Mugo menang foto senja terbaik’. Translation: ‘Wishing to win the award for best sunset photo’. (Source: Melati & Assidik, 2022)	To express goodwill and hope for success using Javanese Ngoko term, ‘mugo’ (hope or wish), which is the informal and casual speech level typically used among friends, family, or in casual settings.
	‘Melihat kebersamaan mereka jalan-jalan nang ndeso ikutan happy’. Translation: ‘Seeing them walking together in the village makes me happy too’. (Source: Rizkyna et al., 2021)	To convey a feeling of joy or contentment using Javanese Ngoko terms, including ‘nang’ (preposition that is roughly equivalent to ‘at’ or ‘in’ in English), and ‘ndeso’ (village or rural area)
	‘Cah pinter tenan iki..salut sama pemikirannya anak muda yang penuh semangat’. Translation: ‘This kid is really smart… respect for the thoughts of a young person full of enthusiasm’. (Source: Rizkyna et al., 2021)	To show admiration or commendation in a comfortable and informal mode of communication using Javanese Ngoko term, such as, ‘iki’ (this), ‘cah’ (kid or young person), ‘pinter’ (smart or intelligent), and ‘tenan’ is an emphasis word (similar to really or truly). In the sentence, the term ‘cah’ is typically used by individuals who speak the Mataraman dialect of the Javanese language, indicating its regional linguistic characteristics.
	‘Plonga plongo, eh ga kerasa bentar lagi tahun baru’. Translation: ‘Feeling dumbfounded, oh how time flies, it’s almost New Year’. (Source: Rizkyna et al., 2021)	To convey a sense of surprise or realization about how quickly time has passed in an informal tone using Javanese Ngoko term, ‘plonga plongo’ (an expression denoting a state of being dazed or lost in thought); and non-standard Indonesian, such as ‘eh’ (an interjection similar to ‘oh’ in English, often used to express realization or surprise), ‘ga kerasa’ (doesn’t feel like or unrealized), and ‘bentar lagi’ (soon or in a short while).
	‘Siapa kira-kira yang melindungi? Saya jadi ber takon takon’ Translation: ‘Who might be protecting? I end up wondering’. (Source: Rizkyna et al., 2021)	To express curiosity or uncertainty using Ngoko Javanese (takon) in informal situation, leading to a state of contemplation or pondering.

The research by Sugiri et al. (2001), Pertiwi et al. (2017), Saddiyah and Rokhman (2018), Djamereng (2022), and Riansi et al. (2023) has provided valuable insights into the complex dynamics of language use in Javanese society, particularly in educational and community settings. These studies illuminate the concept of double overlapping diglossia as proposed by Fasold (1984), showcasing how speakers adeptly shift between high and low language varieties. This linguistic interplay is characterized by the use of formal Indonesian and Kromo Inggil Javanese in more structured environments, contrasted with the employment of informal Ngoko Javanese and non-standard Indonesian in casual conversations. Similar linguistic phenomena are observed globally, as evidenced by Carroll et al. (2017), who note that in Arabic-speaking contexts, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is regarded as the High variety (which commonly used in formal situation such as school), Colloquial Arabic (CA) as the Low variety, and English serves distinct functional roles, particularly among expatriates. Additionally, Page’s (2020) study in the Shamian community highlights a tripartite linguistic division involving English, Mandarin, and Cantonese, where the choice of language significantly influences social interactions and economic transactions. In these contexts, the use of a more intimate language like Cantonese often leads to preferential treatment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining good relations, whereas interactions in English are more transactional in nature. These examples underline the prevalence and significance of triglossic contexts in diverse linguistic landscapes, where language choice is deeply intertwined with social, cultural, and economic factors.

While the aforementioned studies offer insightful observations of language use, they are not without limitations. The study by Sugiri et al. (2001) is limited by its geographic focus, potential oversight of evolving sociocultural factors, and the dynamic changes in language practices since the early 2000s. Pertiwi et al. (2017) primarily focus on generational shifts in language use, potentially overlooking other influential sociolinguistic factors such as gender and profession. Saddiyah and Rokhman’s (2018) study, while insightful, may not fully consider the impact of external factors like media on youth language practices, being limited to formal educational settings. Djamereng’s (2022) research, offering a comprehensive view of regional diglossia, could benefit from a broader perspective that encompasses global influences and technological advancements. Lastly, Riansi et al. (2023) provide valuable insights into classroom code-switching, yet their findings are possibly constrained by the study’s limited scope, focusing on a single school and not capturing the broader educational trends or societal attitudes towards language varieties. Furthermore, the predominance of research on diglossia within school settings can be attributed to the functional distinctions between formal and informal language varieties (Árokay et al., 2014). They clarify that diglossia involves the coexistence of these varieties, where the language learned through formal education and utilized for written and formal spoken contexts is considered the high variety; conversely, the low variety is typically reserved for everyday conversational use (Árokay et al. 2014). This educational focus is likely because schools are pivotal in teaching the high variety, thus serving as critical sites for observing the practical applications and transitions between these language forms. These studies, while enriching our understanding of Javanese diglossia, underscore the necessity for future research to integrate a wider range of sociolinguistic variables, extend to diverse geographic locales, and consider the effects of global and digital dynamics on language practices.

Conclusion

In summarizing the key findings from the literature review, it is evident that diglossia in Javanese society presents a complex interplay of linguistic varieties, each serving specific communicative functions. Studies like those by Sugiri et al. (2001), Pertiwi et al. (2017), Saddiyah and Rokhman (2018), Djamereng (2022), and Riansi et al. (2023) significantly contributes to our understanding of diglossia in Javanese society, particularly in its manifestation across generations and various social contexts. These studies collectively highlight the nuanced application of Fasold’s (1984) concept of double overlapping diglossia, illustrating the fluidity with which Javanese speakers navigate between high and low language varieties. This phenomenon is not isolated to the Javanese context but is mirrored in other linguistic landscapes worldwide, as seen in the works of Carroll et al. (2017) and Page (2020), who explore similar dynamics in Arabic-speaking communities and the Shamian community, respectively. Recent studies further corroborate these findings, demonstrating the global prevalence of diglossia and its critical role in the communicative functions within bilingual and multilingual societies. The intricate interplay of languages in settings like Indonesia, the Middle East, and China provides empirical evidence supporting existing theories of bilingualism and code-switching. These linguistic phenomena are inherently tied to sociocultural, economic, and political factors, highlighting the importance of language as a tool for identity formation, social negotiation, and cultural transmission.

Given the limitations identified in the existing literature on Javanese diglossia, which includes a focus on geographically localized studies, a lack of consideration for broader sociocultural changes, and a predominant emphasis on formal language use within educational settings, the following research question arises: ‘How do contemporary global linguistic influences and sociocultural shifts impact the traditional diglossic practices of the Javanese language across various social domains, including informal settings and across different gender and professional groups?’ This question seeks to bridge the knowledge gap by examining the extent to which global English and evolving societal norms influence the intergenerational use of Javanese language varieties, considering the intricate balance between formal and informal language use beyond the confines of educational institutions.

Acknowledgment

I would like to extend my gratitude for the scholarship provided by the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) from the Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Siti Rahmatia Ntou

Siti Rahmatia Ntou, a postgraduate linguistics student at the Australian National University, delves into sociolinguistics, translation technology, and language acquisition. Her work explores the pivotal role of language in shaping society and individual learning pathways.