Sebuah Kajian Pustaka: e-Journal of Linguistics Available online at https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/eol/index Vol. 14, No. 1, January 2020, pages: 57-65 Print ISSN: 2541-5514 Online ISSN: 2442-7586 https://doi.org/10.24843/e-jl.2020.v14.i01.p06 57 Exploring Scribling in Padang City Public Sphere 1 Yendra, STIKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat Email: yendra@yahoo.com Article info Abstract* Received Date: Sept 06, 2019 Accepted Date: Sept 09, 2019 Published Date: Jan 31, 2020 Keywords:* scribbling, public sphere, language preferences. The aim of this study is to explore language in written form that is visible through scribbling in the Padang city public sphere, and focus to describes the linguistic preferences as scribbling form. This study reveal categories of scribbling form which are: (1) form category base on element of language system such as words, phrases, and sentences; (2) form category base on composition of language use such as monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual. Languages compositions in monolingual are Bahasa Indonesia, Minangkabau, English, Arabic, Japanese, Italian, and Spain. Languages composition in bilingual which are, Indonesia + English, Indonesia + Minangkabau, English + Minangkabau, Indonesia + Arabic, English + Arabic, and English + Japanese. Languages composition in bilingual which are Indonesia + Inggris + Minangkabau, Indonesia + English + Arab, Indonesia + English + Latin, and Indonesia + English + Minangkabau + Japanese. 1. Introduction This study concern with language preferences that is visible on scribbling in Padang city public sphere. Focus of this study to explore and describes how is typography (micro and macro linguistic) of language form is formed as scribbling. Micro linguistic form is analyzed base on the preferences of language subsystem former such as word, phrase, clause, and sentence. More over, macro linguistic form is analyzed base on language preference and language composition such as monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual. As preliminary information, before going to explore the main discussion, on this article firstly should be explain what is scribbling in Padang city mean. Scribbling means the scratching of graphic (alphabet or writing form) or picture in public sphere such graffiti and mural street art. The word graffiti means “little scratchings” and it comes from the Italian graffiare, which means to scratch. Thus mural street art means the combination of alphabet and picture graphic as visual art composition (Alonso, 1998). 58 For examples see Figure 1 and 2 below. Figure 1 Graffiti Figure 2 Mural Street Art Technically, the process of creating graffiti and mural street art in public sphere is using paint, air brush, and spray painting. Graffiti and mural street art such Figure 1 and 2 above show that both kind of scribbling include to visual art concept specially urban art. The concept of those scribbling concern about visual esthetic with some conceptual planning, then the concept visualized through alphabet graphic and sometime combined with other graphic or symbol. Generally, both scribbling such graffiti and mural street art also constructed by lingual symbol as spectacle part of scribbling visual construction in public sphere. That is a sign, especially public sign functioned as announcement, information, or instruction; so that, the scribbling can be called as language communication in public area, also called linguistic landscape. 2. Scribbling Language Preferences Form base on Language Subsystem Language is defined as sistem abritrary vocal simbol use by human being to comunnicated (Saussure, 1916; Bloomfield, 1930; Webster, 1961; Brown, 1980; Ricard, 1995). Its means language is a system that constructed with vocal symbol produced by human. Language is construction with systematically constructed meaning, so that language can be use as tool of communication. Since language is systematically construction language can be explained and extricate as a part (subsystem). The subsystem constructed the language system are phoneme subsystem, morpheme subsystem, and syntax subsystem. That’s all called as the hierarchy of linguistic (Kridalaksana, 2008; Chaer, 2012; Yendra, 2016). Related to language preferences as scribbling form in Padang city public sphere, the lingual form that use on scribbling is the main form beside the non-lingual form. Both forms together are formed as one visual construction in Padang city public area. Base on investigation done, the study reveals most of language form shown in Padang city public sphere as scribbling are words and sentences, the amount left over are phrases and paragraph. See Table 1 below. Tabel 1. Amount of scribbling language preferences on percent Form Amount Percentage (%) word 306 52.40 sentence 183 31.33 phrase 93 15.93 paragraph 2 0.34 Total 584 100 59 Tabel 1 show that intensity of language form such word is the most form is used on scribbling in Padang city public sphere that is 52.40% percent, followed by sentence form that is 31.33% percent. The amounts left over are phrases with intensity 15.93% percent and paragraph with the lowest intensity 0.34% percent. 2.1 Word Form as Language Preferences on Scribbling In language morphology study, word is categorized as morpheme or combination of morpheme, also called as free morpheme. Free morpheme is the smallest part of language construction that can be used as language (Kaplan, 1995; Nelson, 2001; Wardaugh, 2003; Lester, 2009). Its means that form have meaning in communication although it just a single word. From amount of word form 52.40% with 306 Figure of scribbling in Padang city public sphere then can be separated more over base on word kind morphologically, that is single word form, initialization form, and acronym form. Statistically, the intensity of those kind of word used on scribbling in Padang city public sphere is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2. The percentage of kind of word form on scribbling Word form Intensity Percentage (%) Single word 249 81.37 Initialization 45 14.71 Acronym 12 3.92 Total 306 100 Table 2 show the most kind of word uses on scribbling in Padang city public sphere is single word form, that is 81.37% percent; followed by Initialization form with 14.71% percent and acronym form with 3.92% percent. Single word forms as language preferences on scribbling in Padang city public sphere is constructive typology such free and bound morpheme. These form are become language symbol that use as main tool of communication of scribbling. Constructively the function of single word in such scribbling sometime has also to become complementary tool together with non-lingual tool in construct meaning. Most of the single word form functioned as symbolic identity (name), place, individually identity, and mass identity or usually called by street artists as tag, tagging, and single hitting. These tag, tagging, and single hitting are symbolic form as to be used as scribbling existence symbol of the producers to claim their territory. They want their name known as scribbling artist in urban art culture. For examples see Figure 3 below. Figure 3 Samples of tagging and single hitting 60 Besides, also appear the single word on scribbling with directive and joke function that are initialization and acronym. Usually, these kinds of word categorize as adjective. Sometime it also related to terminology that pictures of writer emotional expression about anything. Initialization appears in Padang city public sphere is usually responds and spontaneity of the scribbling writer that typographically writes in one fragment of construction of scribbling. 2.2 Phrases Form as Language Preferences on Scribbling Conceptually phrases can be interpreted as grammatical units, or language units in the two or more words that do not exceed the boundary functions of the clause elements. Phrases are important elements in constructing language occupy grammatical functions in sentences. Its contain one unified grammatical meaning and non-predicative, also called syntactic arrangements (Wardhaugh, 2003: 33). Scribbling in the form of phrases that are displayed in public spaces in the city of Padang are generally in the form of noun phrases (NP) and adjective phrases (Adj). The use of adjective phrases in scribbling usually functioned as expressive expressions of hope, revenge, and anger. For examples: fuck you, tek mak kau, contra social, new hope, petarung pantek, pepek amak, potok gadang, and others. Scribbling in the form of noun phrases usually functioned as a marker of territory or the name of a person or community name. For examples: camp balak, kawasan senyum, kawasan lonte, lubuak buayo ceperist pinggiran, zona anak muda, anjing Kota Padang, area spartacks lingar jati, kawasan sms, area parkir, and others. In addition, there are also scribbling in the form of phrases that appear in public spaces of Padang with a more complex structure, i.e. a combination of phrases with vocabulary from different languages (multilingual). The shape of the phrase usually a form of phrases consisting of several words; visually the form of this phrase more like a sentence. 2.3 Sentences Form as Language Preferences on Scribbling At the grammatical level, the sentence is expressed as a construction consisting of a series of clauses merging (Nelson, 2001: 9). Sentence is a syntactic unit that is composed of basic constituents, such as clauses or arrangement of clauses unity in constructing a complete structure of the meaning of language. In general, scribbling in the form of sentences in public spaces mostly displayed in the form of single sentences, and partly in the form of compound sentences and complex sentences, but with a smaller intensity. Some of the sentence forms are displayed correctly in grammatical, and some are displayed with non-grammatical structure, depending on who makes its and what message to be conveyed through the form of scribbling. Generally, the sentence form that is displayed grammatically functioned as an announcement or information, such as public service advertisements by local governments. In addition, there are also scribbling in the form of sentences displayed in public spaces with complex construction or rather can be said as compound sentences, but it is not complete syntactically. This kind of sentence almost similar to a phrase that is only displayed in a few words. 3. Scribbling Language Preferences Form base on Language Composition According to Blommaert (2013), linguistic landscape is a tool that can be used quickly and easily to detect or recognize the main sociolinguistic features of an area. The linguistic landscape arrangement can provide a historical dimension to the sociolinguistic description in 61 public space because it reflects the initial stages and historical development of literacy use of the region. This shows that what can be investigated from the study of linguistic landscape is the sociolinguistic aspect, especially the form of language composition used. Starting with the question: What is in linguistic landscape, monolingual or multilingual? If it were multilingual, which language was described in that? (Edegar, 2016: 31). Referring to Blommaert (2013) as mentioned above, in this section investigated and explained form of scribbling in Padang City public space based on sociolinguistic aspect, which is related to the composition of the language used, monolingual and multilingual. From the investigations obtained graffiti forms in public spaces in the city of Padang are monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual. Total population of data obtained during the observation was 584 scribbling in various visual forms. Furthermore, each form has been classified and then quantified again to determine the percentage of the intensity of their appearance in public spaces in the city of Padang. From these calculations the following results are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Percentage of intensity of form based on language composition Form Intencity Persentage (%) Monolingual 325 55,65 Bilingual 183 31,34 Multilingual 76 13,01 Total 584 100 Table 4 shows that from the total amount of data that is 584 figures (100%), the monolingual scribbling form is the most common form compared to other forms, with a percentage of 55.65%; then followed by bilingual scribbling with a percentage of 31.34%, and multilingual scribbling with the lowest percentage, 13.01%. Table 4 also shows that the composition of language use in public spaces is a form of integration and diversity of languages in the city of Padang. The percentage of scribbling using more than one language is 44.35%; almost half are scribbling in Padang City public spaces. 3.1 Monolingual Scribbling In general, the monolingual form is a standard form in a language because conceptually language is understood as an equal form in a social society group. Language is communication, not individual, so the level of form must refer to the understanding and uniformity of concepts in each group of language speakers, and related to conventional language characteristics. Based on investigation, there are several languages used in the form of monolingual graffiti in public spaces in the city of Padang, including: Indonesian, English, Minangkabau, Arabic, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish. Qualitatively, the intensity of language use in monolingual scribbling shows that more than half of the scribbling in public spaces. The percentage of intensity of use of each language shown in Table 5 below. 62 Table 5. Intensity of language use in monolingual Bahasa Intensitas Persentase (%) Indonesian 163 50,16 English 68 20,92 Minangkabau 62 19,08 Arabic 17 5,23 Japanese 8 2,46 Italian 4 1,23 Spanish 3 0,92 Jumlah Total 325 100 Table 4.5 shows that Indonesian is the language with the most intensity in the use of monolingual scribbling, with a percentage of 50.16%. This is because Padang City is the capital of West Sumatra Province with a diverse population of various ethnicities in Indonesia, namely: most ethnic Minangkabau and a small number of ethnic Javanese, Batak, Mentawai, Nias, Aceh, Tamil, Chinese, and other ethnicities. Therefore, the chance of using Indonesian as a national language is higher than the use of other languages in communicating on scribbling in public spaces. Furthermore, what is quite interesting from Table 5 above is the intensity of the use of English in scribbling with a percentage of 20.92%, higher than the percentage intensity of the use of the Minangkabau language which only reaches 19.08%. Even though the population of Padang City is 902,413 people, more than 60% are ethnic Minangkabau, which is 541,448 people (Statistics Agency of Padang City, 2016). Supposedly, the Minangkabau language has a higher chance, but in practice the use of English is even higher. This is because English is considered a global language and can be understood by many people, and also English is more prestigious than the Minangkabau language. For Another reason, in the Minangkabau language there is no writing tradition, so the vocabulary of the Minangkabau language is difficult to be represented by writing the alphabet. In addition, advances in science and technology especially in the field of information technology, indirectly have an impact on lifestyle changes in the people of Padang, especially the younger generation. These developments along with global relationships have a very dominant foreign influence, so that foreign cultures give color to people's language attitudes. Therefore, local languages such as the Minangkabau which are predicted as one of the national language enrichment languages are increasingly forgotten by the native speakers. 3.2 Bilingual and Multilingual Scribbling Bilingual is defined as the use of two languages by a speaker in association with other people, where the use of the language is carried out alternately between one language with another language (Mackey 1962; Chaer, 2010). According to Weinreich (2007) someone who involved in the practice of using two languages is called bilingual. In this case, the level of language mastery of one bilingual is different from the other bilingual, depending on each individual who uses it. Someone called bilingualist if they able to play a role in language change. (Aslinda dan Syafiyahya, 2007). In scribbling, concept of bilinguality is not only the ability to use language interchangeably by bilingualists, but rather the use of language at the same time which is displayed in the form writing in public spaces. In this case, contact of a language with other languages occurs in the construction of scribbling. Besides, there are also transfer the use of 63 language elements, or even mixing language identity between one language and another. Based on the investigation, there are 183 scribbling in bilingual form, with a percentage of 31, 34% of the total data. Groups of languages composition used are: (1) Indonesian and English, (2) Indonesian and Minangkabau, (3) English and Minangkabau, (4) Indonesian and Arabic, (5) English and Arabic, and (6) English and Japanese. The percentage intensity of the use of the composition of each form of bilingual that appears in the Padang City public space, is shown in Table 4.6 below. Table 6. The intensity of using bilingual language compositions Komposisi Bahasa Intensitas Persentase (%) Indonesian + English 113 61,74 Indonesian + Minangkabau 29 15,85 English + Minangkabau 26 14,23 Indonesia + Arabic 13 7,10 English + Arabic 1 0,54 English + Japanese 1 0,54 Jumlah Total 183 100 Table 6 shows that the intensity of bilingual in scribbling is predominantly Indonesian and English, with percentage 61.74%. Followed by the composition of Indonesian and Minangkabau with percentage 15.85%, and the composition of English and Minangkabau with percentage 14.77%, then the composition of Indonesian and Arabic with percentage 7.10%; the remainder is the composition of English and Arabic, and English and Japanese each with percentage 0.54%. From Table 6 formulated that, there are various language compositions used in the form of bilingual scribbling displayed in public spaces with various forms and structure. In deference, what is meant by multilingual forms of scribbling in Padang public spaces is the use of compositions of more than two languages in one scribbling construction. Based on investigations, the form of multilingual is the least appearance compared to the monolingual and bilingual forms, only seventy-six figures with a percentage of 13.01% of the total. the language used in multilingual is almost the same as bilingual, Indonesian, English, Arabic, Japanese, and Minangkabau; the only difference is the composition of languages that are more diverse and more numerous. Table 7. Intensity of use of multilingual compositions Composition Intensity Persentage (%) Indonesian + English + Minangkabau 69 90,80 Indonesian + English + Arabic 5 6,58 Indonesian + English + Latin 1 1,31 Indonesian + English + Minangkabau + Japanese 1 1,31 Jumlah Total 76 100 Table 7 shows the composition of languages in the form of multilingual almost similar to the forms of bilingual, sometime with the principle of code mixing and code switching. Although there are many similarities between bilingual forms and multilingual forms, structurally multilingual scribbling shapes have higher complexity compared to bilingual scribbling shapes. In this case, the complexity is the structure of the combination or composition of languages that are used in a mix of codes and code switching. 64 4. References: Alonso, A., 1998. Urban Graffiti on the City Landscape. In: Western Geography Graduate Conference San Diego State University. Barry, Syamsul. 2008. Seni Jalanan Kota Jogja. (tesis). Jogja: Magister Ilmu Religi dan Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Blommaert, J. 2013. Ethnography, Super diversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1930. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin Ld. Brown, H. Douglas. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. London: Prentice Hall International INC. Chaer, Abdul dan Leony Agustina. 2010. Sosiolinguistik: Pengantar Awal. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta. Chaer, Abdul. 2012. Linguistik Umum; edisi revisi. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Edegar, da Conceicao Savio. 2016. Studi sosioliguistik bahasa Fataluku di Lautem. (Doctoral thesis) Leiden University Repository; Issue Date: 2016-01-28. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/37552 Kaplan, P. Jefrey. 1995. English Grammar: Principle and Fact. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 2008. Kamus Linguistik. (Edisi Ketiga). Jakarta: Gramedia. Lester, Mark. 2009. English Grammar Drill. Ney York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Lindawati. 2011. Alam sebagai Sumber Inspirasi Mamangan Minangkabau. (prosiding) Internasional Seminar FIB UA – PPIK USM 26 – 27 Oktober 2011. Padang: Universitas Andalas Mackey, WP. 1970. The Description of Bilingualism. London: Sage Publication. Nelson, Gerald. 2001. English an Essential Grammar. New York: Routledge. Oshima, Alice. Ann Houge. 1998. Writing Academic English. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Ricard, Jack. 1995. Tentang Percakapan (terjemahan Ismari). Surabaya: Airlangga University Press. Saussure, De. Ferdinand. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/37552 65 Verhaar, J.W.M..1985. Pengantar Linguistik . Jakarta: Gajah Mada University Press. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2003. Understanding English Grammar a Linguistic Approach. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Webster, Merriam. 1961. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Encyclopedia Britania INC: USA. Weinrich, Uriel. 2007. Language in Contact. Paris: Mouton. Yendra. 2016. Mengenal Ilmu Bahasa (Linguistik). Jogyakarta: Deepublish (CV. Budi Utama). Zemach E, Dorothy. Lisa A Rumisek. 2003. College Writing: From Paragraph to Essay. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers. 5. Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank all those who have given valuable contributions to this research so that the results can be disseminated through publication, especially to the examiners: Prof. Dr. Ketut Artawa, M.A., Dr. Made Sri Satyawati, M. Hum., Prof. Dr. I Ketut Darma Laksana, M. Hum., Prof. Dr. Nengah Sudipa, M.A., Prof. Dr. I Wayan Simpen, M. Hum., Prof. Dr. Oktavianus, M. Hum., Dr. A.A. Putu Putra, M. Hum. for their advices to deepen the analysis and presentation of appropriate research results. Biography of Author Yendra, S.S., M.Hum Lecturer of Department of English and Education Program, Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (STKIP) PGRI Sumatera Barat