Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 338 Online version available in : http://arbitrer.fib.unand.ac.id | 2339-1162 (Print) | 2550-1011 (Online) | JURNAL ARBITRER Submission Track A B S T R A C T Received: November 18, 2023 Final Revision: December 25, 2023 Accepted: December 27, 2023 Available Online: January 8, 2024 Languag¬e revitalization as a linguistic social movement that aims to preserve and promote local languages, is experiencing a paradigm shift in Indonesia. These shifts can be seen from the aspect of language status objects. That is meant here is that the object of language status in language revitalization is not only languages with minority and endangered status. All local languages in Indonesia can be revitalized. Based on these conditions, this study explores the shift in the language revitalization paradigm in Indonesia. This aims to explain the structure of paradigm shift and provide an explanation for understanding language revitalization in its historical development in Indonesia. The study method uses qualitative methods with data collection techniques from the results of literature studies. Data analysis refers to Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s structure of the scientific revolution in terms of paradigm shift. As a result, the shift in the language revitalization paradigm in terms of the language status object is based on the heterogeneity of languages in Indonesia. Meanwhile, all languages in Indonesia must and have the right to be preserved in accordance with statutory regulations. This condition makes the government regulate language revitalization regulations that apply to all languages so that all languages in Indonesia receive the same treatment in the context of language preservation efforts. Keywords paradigm shift, language revitalization, local languages, philosophy Correspondence E-mail: satwiko.budiono@brin.go.id Article Paradigm Shift of Language Revitalization in Indonesia Satwiko Budiono1, Selly Rizki Yanita2, Tengku Syarfina3 1,2National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia 3Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia Under License of Creative Commons Attributioni-Non Commercial 4.0 International.DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.10.4.338-347.2023 I. INTRODUCTION Language revitalization efforts are on the rise in Indonesia. This cannot be separated from the paradigm shift in language revitalization in Indonesia. Language revitalization itself is one of the language policies in Indonesia, aimed at preserving local languages. According to the Ministry of Education and Culture (2018), language revitalization has several important roles. Starting from (1) keeping the authenticity of local languages alive, (2) regaining the relationship between local languages and the ways in which speakers maintain them, (3) rebuilding the traditions of local language communities, (4) finding new functions of a local language, to (5) presenting a new generation of local language speakers. This makes language revitalization activities necessary and urgent because Indonesia has 718 local languages (National Agency for Language Development and Cultivation, 2019). In order to preserve it, it is important to take proactive steps toward language revitalization efforts. Due to their critical or severely endangered status with only a small number of speakers, this language revitalization focuses on local languages (Hinton & Hale, 2001). This is because languages with a small number of speakers are at a higher risk of extinction compared to those with more speakers. Language revitalization has been a topic of interest for multiple groups worldwide, including in Indonesia. This attention has increased since the announcement of the International Decade of Indigenous Language by UNESCO, which spans the years 2022 to 2032. This international decade aims to ensure the fulfillment of the rights of local communities to preserve, revitalize, and promote local languages in sustainable development efforts (UNESCO, 2021b). Indonesia, as a UN country member, is also making efforts to preserve and develop local languages in various regions more Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 339 intensively and massively. Thus, efforts to preserve language and develop local languages carried out together can become a social movement in the field of language that has a high and real impact. Language revitalization can increase awareness, recognition, integration, and support which are important points in this international decade. These conditions make the Indonesian government interpret this international decade as a major celebration through language revitalization by ensuring the fulfillment of the rights of all local communities. This prompted a shift in the status of language that could be revitalized, from prioritizing languages with endangered status to all languages that could be revitalized. In this regard, this study is interesting to discuss shift in the language revitalization paradigm in Indonesia. This aims to explain the structure of paradigm shift and provide an explanation for understanding language revitalization in its historical development in Indonesia. This is because the concept of language revitalization in Indonesia has expanded, thereby influencing a shift in the paradigm itself. Surely, this study has a very high level of novelty because there have been no other studies that discuss the shift in the language revitalization paradigm. Several previous studies discussing paradigms have not been linked to the field of language, especially language preservation efforts in Indonesia. Start with Asrudin (2017), Almas (2018), Ambarwari et al. (2023), and Firdiyanti (2023). Asrudin (2017) discusses the development of the realism revolution in international relations theory. In that study, Asrudin critically responded to Van Ness’s paper. Almas (2018) discusses the development of the learning revolution in the education field. In that study, Almas provides views on problem-based learning and discovery learning. Ambarwari et al. (2023) discuss the development of the revolution in the field of geography. In that study, Ambarwari et al. explain the development of remote sensing image classification methods, which have given rise to several paradigms. Firdiyanti (2023) discusses the relevance of paradigm revolution theory to Islamic studies. In that study, Firdiyanti linked the paradigm shift in buying and selling transactions from offline to online in the context of Islamic studies. From several previous studies, it can be seen that the discussion about paradigms focuses more on the education learning field. Besides that, discussion about paradigms also exists in other fields, such as international relations, geography, and economics. However, talk about paradigms in linguistics has never existed before. This gives this study new data in the field of linguistics in discussions about scientific paradigms. In this case, most linguistic studies, especially language revitalization, tend to focus more on the reason for language revitalization efforts (Kamma, 2016) and the language revitalization process (Mu’jizah, 2018). In this way, this study fills the gaps in language revitalization by taking a different perspective from previous studies. This study also adds to the number of studies on language revitalization in Indonesia, which are still small. II. METHODS This study uses a qualitative method. This is in accordance with the opinion of Heigham & Croker (2009) that qualitative research studies phenomena, participants, or events in a particular setting. Besides qualitative research is also a research method that is useful for conducting exploration to find ideas, new insights, or new theories. In this research, the discussion leads to studying the phenomenon of the language revitalization paradigm shift that occurred in Indonesia. Besides that, this qualitative method is also suitable to be used because this study aims to explore finding new ideas and insights regarding language revitalization to preserve language in Indonesia. The data collection technique in this study uses a literature review by taking data from language revitalization research and theory published in journals or books. Data analysis in this study refers to the structure of the scientific revolution in terms of a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1996) as can be seen in Figure 1. In this case, the structure of the scientific revolution proposed by Kuhn (1996) consists of (1) paradigm I, (2) normal science, (3) anomaly, (4) crisis, and (5) paradigm II. This structure of Figure 1. The structure of scientific revolutions by Kuhn (1996) Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 340 the scientific revolution is suitable for exploring the growth of scientific knowledge, which in this study is the development of a paradigm shift in the language revitalization concept in Indonesia. This is because Wray (2023) reveals that scientific revolution is at the core of Kuhn’s understanding of the growth of scientific knowledge. Kuhn noted that paradigm shifts involved relatively sudden and unstructured transformations so that there is a previously unseen pattern. This is also found in language revitalization as an effort to preserve language in Indonesia. The target object of language revitalization, which started for endangered languages, can now be applied to all languages in Indonesia. In this way, the discussion of analysis using the structure of the scientific revolution becomes interesting to explore the understanding of this paradigm shift. III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION As explained in the previous section, the discussion in this study refers to the structure of the scientific revolution by Kuhn (1996). Starting from paradigm I, normal science, anomaly, crisis, to paradigm II. Each structure is associated with the development of language revitalization in Indonesia. In this case, paradigm I is the conceptual framework that underlies scientific activities to determine the research structure, the problems studied, and the methods used. The explanation of paradigm I here is that the target object of language revitalization is prioritized for endangered languages. Normal science is research that is based on the results of previous scientific achievements, which become the basis for subsequent analysis. The normal scientific explanation here is more about the theory of language revitalization, which links it to endangered languages. Anomaly is the discovery of new facts that arise from the existing paradigm’s failure to see existing phenomena. The explanation for the anomaly here is more about the gap in the number of language speakers and technology in language revitalization. A crisis is the recognition of an anomaly that causes a loss of confidence in the existing paradigm and causes the emergence of alternative phenomena. The crisis explanation here is more about dominant language speakers executing language revitalization like minority language speakers. Paradigm II is a paradigm shift that answers the challenges of anomaly and responds to crises by giving rise to new phenomena that are different from the previous conceptual framework. The explanation of paradigm II here is more about a paradigm shift from prioritized language revitalization for endangered languages to language revitalization for all languages in Indonesia. All of Kuhn’s structure of the scientific revolution then became the basis for discussion about the concept of language revitalization in Indonesia. Below in Figure 2 is a flow chart of the discussion in this study, which is summarized in chart form to facilitate understanding of the paradigm shift regarding language revitalization in Indonesia Paradigm 1: Revitalization for Endangered Language In the context of efforts to preserve languages, what is of concern to many linguists is preserving languages that have an endangered language status. This is because in a language, there is knowledge and wealth for the community of speakers, which is useful for living life by local situations and conditions. When a language becomes extinct, the intangible heritage is also lost, thus diminishing cultural diversity in the world (Austin & Sallabank, 1999). To preserve languages from extinction, there are several ways to carry out language Figure 2. The structure of the scientific revolution regarding language revitalization Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 341 documentation and language revitalization (Rau & Florey, 2007). These two things can be a way to perpetuate the uniqueness of the language and minimize the extinction of the language. This condition creates a paradigm in the linguistics field that language preservation efforts, such as language revitalization, are intended for endangered languages with a small number of speakers. This is because languages with a better status with a larger number of speakers have a longer survival and, therefore, do not require language preservation efforts. Meanwhile, endangered languages with a small number of speakers, if efforts to preserve the language are not immediately implemented, such as language documentation and language revitalization, could result in the extinction of language status. What is meant here by an endangered language is a language that has the criteria expressed by Campbell & Rehg (2018). Some of these criteria consist of (1) the absolute number of speakers, (2) intergenerational transmission, (3) a decrease in the number of speakers, and (4) a decrease in the area of language use. In terms of the number of speakers, the fewer number of speakers of a language, it can be said that the less likely it is for the language to survive in the long term so that the number of speakers determines the status of a language in danger of extinction. In terms of intergenerational transmission, if a language is not learned by children from one generation to the next generations, then the language will become extinct so this also determines whether the language is endangered. On the other hand, the higher the intergenerational language transmission, the higher the hope that the language will continue to live or be spoken by communities. In terms of the decreasing number of speakers, the decreasing number creates a primary endangered language. In terms of decreasing language use, more areas of language use can give rise to high life expectancy for the language. However, the fewer areas where a language is used can result in a small life expectancy, such that the language can be categorized as an endangered language. Normal Science: Language Revitalization Theory This paradigm of language revitalization for endangered languages has given rise to several theories of language revitalization. Surely, the theory of language revitalization aims to preserve languages threatened with extinction. Most theories, always link language revitalization with endangered languages. This theory of language revitalization as a normal science can be seen in Hinton & Hale (2001) and Olko & Sallabank (2021). Based on Hinton & Hale (2001), language revitalization theory focuses more on guidelines and practicals of revitalization. Starting from planning and determining appropriate language revitalization efforts for the target language to providing guidance to local language speakers so that intergenerational language transmission continues. In this case, language revitalization planning consists of three things: status, corpus, and acquisition. These three things aim to harmonize the needs and interests of target language speakers. Thus, language revitalization is hoped to proceed according to effective and efficient planning. Besides that, determining language revitalization efforts is also no less important. This is because there are five categories of ways to revitalize language. Starting from (1) school-based language learning programs, (2) language learning programs after school as extracurricular, (3) language learning programs for adults, especially parents, (4) development of documentation and materials, and (5) learning programs for family-based language. In fact, the development of language speakers as agents of change is also discussed here. This is because the most significant cause of failure in teaching endangered languages is the lack of teacher training in the field of languages. Over time, the development of language revitalization theory was continued by Olko & Sallabank (2021). The development of language revitalization theory shows more alternative language revitalization efforts that have been done in various languages in the world. However, Olko & Sallabank still use the language revitalization paradigm for endangered languages by adding various programs that are not limited to traditional language teaching. The language revitalization program offered here has expanded to various aspects, including adapting to the current situation by involving technology to revitalize endangered languages. Various programs that can support language revitalization efforts include recording songs in local languages, developing linguistic Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 342 systems, changing geographical naming into local languages, creating local language applications, creating digital dictionaries, and creating local language signboards in public spaces. From these various revitalization efforts, it can be seen that there has been a significant expansion in efforts to preserve endangered languages. This means that language revitalization can be anything as long as it is acceptable to the target language, from small to big things. Anomaly: Gap in Number of Speakers and Technology The language revitalization paradigm for endangered languages found new facts when applied in Indonesia. This is because there is a deviation from the paradigm in viewing phenomena in Indonesia. The anomaly here is based on the gap in the number of speakers and technology. These two things are perhaps less acceptable in Indonesia. The reason for the gap in the number of speakers is that there is minimal support from the local government. When a language is endangered, it receives efforts to preserve the language, such as language revitalization, but local governments, as speakers of the dominant language, are less enthusiastic about supporting it. This is because the endangered language is classified as a minority language in the area, so local governments feel they do not belong to each other because local governments tend to come from speakers of the dominant language in the area. These conditions have an impact on the lack of continuity of language revitalization as a follow-up effort by local government to preserve local language in their regions, such as the revitalization of the Limola language in North Luwu Regency, South Sulawesi Province (Musayyedah et al., 2021). Besides that, the anomaly is also based on the lack of access to and uses of technology for speakers of endangered languages in Indonesia. This is because endangered language is usually located in isolated areas and do not have access to and use to technology. Meanwhile, language preservation efforts such as language documentation and language revitalization currently require technological tools and internet access to collect, process, and present language (Jones, 2015). This makes language revitalization programs in Indonesia less flexible. What is meant here is that the endangered language revitalization program in Indonesia cannot take advantage of access and uses of technology, so the program is executed in traditional ways. For example, the Tobati language revitalization in Papua Province (Budiono & Harimansyah, 2023) and the Retta language revitalization in East Nusa Tenggara Province (Budiono & Noviani, 2023). This is done by creating songs in local languages. This is based on the lack of access and use of technology in the area so that the program being run can be said to be simple in accordance with the high interest of language speakers in songs. This simplicity can be seen from the Tobati language performance in Figure 3 and the Retta language performance in Figure 4, which displays local language songs in a choir with only guitar and keyboard instruments. Figure 3. Tobati language revitalization by creating songs in the local language Figure 4. Retta language revitalization by creating songs in the local language Crisis: Speakers of The Dominant Language Revitalizing At this structure, the crisis in language revitalization began with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages (UNESCO, 2021a). This raises awareness of the Indonesian government in language preservation efforts such as language revitalization in Indonesia. However, revitalizing endangered languages requires little attention and support from the local government. Some of the Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 343 factors that local governments do not provide enough attention and support for are (1) the dissimilarity in the origins of speakers of endangered languages and speakers of dominant languages, which constitute many local governments, (2) the small impact of revitalizing endangered languages because it only involves a small number of language speakers, and (3) limited development of language revitalization program that is endangered, which correlates with the low level of public acceptance. This condition is in accordance with the problems in language revitalization expressed by Hirata-Edds & Peter (2005). In this case, issues in language revitalization are divided into macro and micro-level problems. Macro-level problems include government support for local languages and a lack of thorough language planning. Furthermore, issues related to the macro level, such as government support, are demonstrated by the absence of relevant legislation or policies as a follow-up to the language revitalization that has been carried out. Meanwhile, micro-level problems include the local language-speaking community itself. Things that are of concern at the micro level include demographics, attitudes, cultural practices, and the state of the community. However, micro- level problems can usually be resolved internally by the language speaker compared to macro-level problems, which must be resolved externally by the language speakers. The various language revitalization problems that occur in Indonesia actually threaten the language revitalization paradigm with extinction. Speakers of the dominant language, with assistance from the government, are taking part in language revitalization. This, of course, creates a paradigm shift in language revitalization in Indonesia. Dominant language speakers revitalize the language by creating local content in local languages such as Langkat Malay (Imran et al., 2021) and Toba Batak language (Juliana et al., 2021). Langkat Malay speakers make local content books at the elementary school level, as shown in Figure 5. Toba Batak language speakers also make local content books at the elementary school level, as shown in Figure 6. Besides that, speakers of the dominant language also revitalized the language by creating folklore books in the Nias language, which can be seen in Figure 7 (Imran & Sibarani, 2021) and Simalungun language, which can be seen in Figure 8 (Rosliani et al., 2021). These two things are included in language revitalization efforts even though they are not carried out directly. In this way, efforts to create local content and folklore in local languages in the dominant language become normal, and this is being done massively in Indonesia. Paradigm 2: Revitalization for All Languages in Indonesia The fairness of the dominant language in carrying out language revitalization in Indonesia creates a new paradigm for language revitalization. This new paradigm is that language revitalization can be executed by all languages in Indonesia, both dominant and minority languages. This Figure 5. Local content in the Malay language Figure 6. Local content in Batak Toba language Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 344 as the Golden Indonesia 2045 Program. This made the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology, through the National Agency for Language Development and Cultivation, create a national language policy system regarding language revitalization in accordance with a new paradigm in Indonesia. This new paradigm shift can be seen from the existence of three language revitalization action models: Model A, Model B, and Model C. Each model has different characteristics and new paradigm shift in Indonesia was marked by the 17th Merdeka Belajar Program on the Local Language Revitalization proposed by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology. This program is included in the Indonesian government’s response to UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages for the period 2023—2032. According to Sartono (2021), this international decade coincides with the end of the National Long Term Development, or in the Indonesian language, called the PJPN period 2005—2025, towards the moment known Figure 7. Folklore book in the Nias language Figure 8. Folklore book in Simalungun language Figure 7. The 17th Merdeka Belajar Program on Local Language Revitalization Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 345 approaches. Model A language revitalization is characterized by language status in the safe category, with an inheritance approach carried out in a structured manner in schools. Examples of Model A language revitalization can be found in languages in Western Indonesia. Model B language revitalization is characterized by the status of the language being classified as vulnerable and endangered with an inheritance approach carried out through community-based learning. Examples of Model B language revitalization can be found in languages in Central Indonesia. Model C language revitalization is characterized by language status in the severely endangered and critically endangered with an inheritance approach carried out through learning adapted to the speech area and specificities of the local area. Examples of Model C language revitalization can be found in languages in Eastern Indonesia. In this way, all languages in Indonesia can execute language revitalization according to the characteristics of their respective regions. This creates a crisis in the language revitalization paradigm for minority and endangered languages. This paradigm is starting to be abandoned. Meanwhile, every language in Indonesia must and has the right to be preserved in accordance with statutory regulations, whether it is a language with safe, vulnerable, definitely endangered, severely endangered, or critically endangered. This condition has forced the government to regulate language revitalization regulations that apply to all languages in Indonesia so that they receive the same treatment. This was done in the context of language preservation efforts as a response to UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages. This regulation is also a sign of a paradigm shift in language in Indonesia. However, the language revitalization policy in Indonesia as part of a paradigm shift that can be carried out for all languages also has positive and negative aspects. Some positive aspects of the paradigm shift impact of language revitalization in Indonesia are that all languages have the same right to receive language preservation efforts from the government. This is the same as human rights, so everything depends on language speakers’ activeness in preserving and articulating their own languages. Besides that, all regions in Indonesia can carry out language revitalization as part of general language and culture preservation. Furthermore, this paradigm shift also has negative aspects. The most visible thing is that languages with a small number of speakers are increasingly untouched by local governments. This is because speakers of the dominant language usually dominate local governments. This makes local governments definitely make language revitalization of their language. Language empowerment is threatened with extinction with the number of small speakers decreasing. In fact, it can also be said that this paradigm change is correlated with the increasingly accelerated rate of extinction due to the increasingly widespread dominance of the dominant language in a region. The large political will of dominant language speakers within the local government makes the dominant language take part in revitalizing their language. Only a few regions are willing to revitalize minority and endangered languages. Regional governments still do not have an awareness of preserving all languages in their region. All regional heads of government are obliged to make efforts to preserve the language, whether dominant or minority. This is stated in Minister of Home Affairs Regulation Number 40 of 2007 concerning Guidelines for Regional Heads in the Preservation and Development of State and Local Languages. These conditions mean that the National Agency for Language Development and Cultivation, under the authority of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology as a language institution in Indonesia, needs to take follow-up action in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Socialization in the context of building awareness of language preservation efforts, especially language revitalization, is very important for local governments. What needs to be emphasized is that all languages must be preserved so that the gap between dominant and minority languages does not occur again. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion in the previous section, it can be concluded that the shift in the language revitalization paradigm in Indonesia regarding the status of language objects is based on the heterogeneity of languages in Indonesia. The large number of languages in Indonesia means that endangered languages receive less attention and support from the government, which usually comes from speakers of the dominant language in the region. Moreover, minority languages are generally located in isolated areas so their Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 346 REFERENCES Almas, A. F. (2018). Sumbangan Paradigma Thomas S. Kuhn dalam Ilmu dan Pendidikan (Penerapan Metode Problem Based Learning dan Discovery Learning). At-Tarbawi: Jurnal Kajian Kependidikan Islam, 3(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.22515/attarbawi.v3i1.1147 Ambarwari, A., Husni, E. M., & Mahayana, D. (2023). Perkembangan Metode Klasifikasi Citra Penginderaan Jauh dalam Perspektif Revolusi Ilmiah Thomas Kuhn. Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia, 6(3), 465—473. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23887/jfi.v6i3.53865 Asrudin, A. (2017). Thomas Kuhn dan Teori Hubungan Internasional: Realisme sebagai Paradigma. Global South Review, 1(2), 107. https://doi.org/10.22146/globalsouth.28830 Austin, P. K., & Sallabank, J. (1999). Introduction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975981.001 Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa. (2019). Bahasa dan Peta Bahasa di Indonesia (6th ed.). Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Budiono, S., & Harimansyah, G. (2023). The Revitalisation of Tobati, an Endangered Language of Papua in Indonesia. In R. Valijarvi & L. Kahn (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Resources for Endangered Languages (p. 248—262). BRILL. Budiono, S., & Noviani, E. (2023). Retta Language Revitalization Learning Materials in Alor Regency. Bahasa Dan Seni: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni, Dan Pengajarannya, 51(2), 312–324. https://doi. org/https://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um015v51i22023p312 Campbell, L., & Rehg, K. L. (2018). Introduction: Endangered Languages. In K. L. Rehg & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages (pp. xxviii–18). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190610029.013.3 Firdiyanti, S. I. (2023). Relevansi Teori Revolusi Paradigma Thomas S. Kuhn Terhadap Transkasi Jual- Beli Online. Shar-E : Jurnal Kajian Ekonomi Hukum Syariah, 9(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.37567/ shar-e.v9i1.1687 Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistic: A Practical Introduction. Palgrave Macmilan. Hinton, L., & Hale, K. (Eds.). (2001). The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. BRILL. Hirata-Edds, T., & Peter, L. (2005). Issues in language revitalization. In Saving Languages (pp. 21–49). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615931.003 Imran, Jurlianti, M., & Yolferi. (2021). Diri Amba: Muatan Lokal Tematik Terpadu Kurikulum 2013 dalam Bahasa Melayu Langkat. Balai Bahasa Provinsi Sumatra Utara. Imran, & Sibarani, T. (2021). Cerita Rakyat Nias dalam Bahasa Nias, Bahasa Indonesia, dan Bahasa Inggris. Balai Bahasa Provinsi Sumatra Utara. Jones, M. C. (2015). Endangered Languages and New Technologies. Cambridge University Press. Juliana, Albana, H., & Fitra, Y. (2021). Ahu Raphon Donganhu: Muatan Lokal Tematik Terpadu Kurikulum 2013 dalam Bahasa Batak Toba. Balai Bahasa Provinsi Sumatra Utara. Kamma, A. (2016). Usaha Pemertahanan dan Revitalisasi Bahasa Ponosakan. Kadera Bahasa, 8(2), 209– existence is less visible and often not recognized as part of the cultural assets of the local area. Instead, minority language speakers are seen as a threat to the existence of dominant language speakers. Even though language preservation efforts such as the minority and endangered languages come from the central government and foreign academics, unsupportive environmental factors mean that the existence of minority and endangered languages cannot be increased. In fact, it makes the rate of extinction of minority languages even higher. Satwiko Budiono / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol. 10 No. 4 (2023) 347 218. https://doi.org/10.47541/kaba.v8i2.33 Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Pedoman Bagi Kepala Daerah dalam Pelestarian dan Pengembangan Bahasa Negara dan Bahasa Daerah, (2007). Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan T. (2022). Buku Saku Revitalisasi Bahasa. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. https://badanbahasa.kemdikbud.go.id/berita- detail/3428/kemendikbudristek-luncurkan-merdeka-belajar-17:-revitalisasi-bahasa-daerah Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2018). Petunjuk Teknis Revitalisasi Bahasa. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. Mu’jizah. (2018). Preservasi dan Revitalisasi Bahasa dan Sastra Nafri, Papua: Sebuah Bahasa Hampir Punah. Aksara, 30(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.29255/aksara.v30i1.217.75-88 Musayyedah, Jerniati, Herianah, Syamsurijal, & Satyalaksana. (2021). Revitalisasi Bahasa Limola Berbasis Komunitas di Desa Sassa, Kabupaten Luwu Utara, Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan. Balai Bahasa Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan. Olko, J., & Sallabank, J. (Eds.). (2021). Revitalizing Endangered Languages. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108641142 Rau, D. V., & Florey, M. (Eds.). (2007). Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian Languages. University of Hawai’i Press. Rosliani, Mulia, A., & Siagian, M. R. (2021). Cerita Rakyat Simalungun dalam Bahasa Simalungun, Bahasa Indonesia, dan Bahasa Inggris. Balai Bahasa Provinsi Sumatra Utara. Sartono. (2021). Menyongsong Dekade Internasional Bahasa Daerah 2022-2032. Masyarakat & Budaya, 23(21), 1--5. https://pmb.brin.go.id/menyongsong-dekade-internasional-bahasa-daerah-2022- 2032/?amp UNESCO. (2021a). Evaluation of UNESCO’s Action to Revitalize and Promote Indigenous Languages. Internal Oversight Service UNESCO. UNESCO. (2021b). Global Action Plan: The International Decade of Indigenous Languages. https:// en.unesco.org/idil2022-2032 Wray, K. B. (2023). Kuhn’s Intellectual Path: Charting The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge University Press.