SOCIAL DIALECTICAL THEORY OF PRAXIS

Submitted For Assigment

Ecolinguistic

Lecturer :

Dr. Nur Syamsiah, M.Pd

Made by :

1. Diana Komala Sari 1911040316

2. Khoirummuthmainnah 1911040117

ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHER

RADEN INTAN ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2022
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In general, linguistic studies in the 21st century are derivatives of linguistic studies
originating from the view of Ferdinand de Saussure, except for ecolinguistic studies.
Ecolinguistics is an umbrella that can cover and resolve the diversity of the natural
environment and the language environment through broad theoretical approaches. One of
them is the theory of "Social Dialectical Praxis, what is the concept of this theory?

In the view of this study, language norms are part of social praxis. Based on theories
related to social praxis, ecolinguists consider that language is a social product of all human
activities, but at the same time language itself can change or modify human activities and
human social praxis. The interrelation and interdependence depicted between language and
social praxis, according to Lindo and Jeppe (2000:9), is a dialectical relationship between
language and social praxis.

Due to the connection between language theory and social praxis theory, ecolinguistic
studies design a linguistic theory which is linked to the dialectical theory of social praxis
known as The Three dimensionality of social praxis. The three-dimensional theory of social
praxis is an ecolinguistic theory that is widely used by the Odense School, the school founded
by Bang and Door (1998). This theory is applied in observing the environment and
environmental issues to explain environmental language norms which are represented in the
form of a theoretical framework.

Humans have an awareness of what they are doing because humans themselves tend
to have freedom which is a human will as a creature created by God to think, which is given
the ability to think rationally. Every single human being or individual is not actually born as a
member of society, but the individual is directed to become a socialist human being, so that
he can be considered as a member of society. Therefore, society is an objective and
subjective target based on theoretical understanding. (L. Berger & Luckyman, 1990, p. 176).a
process of change that occurs continuously without knowing the cause, in the process it raises
social awareness of the community.
 Dialectic is a contradiction between opposing aspects and everything develops
continuously. (max, pp. 118-119). This dialectic can be said to be something that was born in
society with the social conditions of society that are intersubjective in which the social
structure can be understood by each individual who has something to do with it. dialectical
theory is related to the social process of people's lives which have a structure in which there
is opposition.

This social dialectical theory refers to the results of human products that create a
culture. However, humans themselves can be called cultural products because they live in a
cultured environment.
 CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

A. DEFINITION OF DIALECT

A dialect is a variety of English which is associated with a particular region and/or social
class. To state the obvious, speakers from different geographical regions speak English rather
differently: hence we refer to 'Geordie' (Newcastle English), 'New York English' or 'Cornish
English.

In addition to geographical variation, the social background of a speaker will also

influence the variety of English that person speaks: two children may grow up in the same
Yorkshire village, but if one is born into a wealthy family and attends an expensive private
school, while the other is born into a less well-off family and attends the local state school,
the two are likely to end up speaking rather different varieties of English. It is this
combination of regional and social variation that I refer to collectively as 'dialect,'" (Hodson
2014).

Varieties of dialects

1. Geographic Dialects

The most widespread type of dialectal differentiation is regional, or geographic. As a rule, the
speech of one locality differs at least slightly from that of any other place. Differences
between neighbouring local dialects are usually small, but, in traveling farther in the same
direction, differences accumulate. Every dialectal feature has its own boundary line, called an
isogloss (or sometimes heterogloss). Isoglosses of various linguistic phenomena rarely
coincide completely, and by crossing and interweaving they constitute intricate patterns on
dialect maps. Frequently, however, several isoglosses are grouped approximately together
into a bundle of isoglosses. This grouping is caused either by geographic obstacles that arrest
the diffusion of a number of innovations along the same line or by historical circumstances,
such as political borders of long standing, or by migrations that have brought into contact two
populations whose dialects were developed in noncontiguous areas Geographic dialects
include local ones (e.g., the Yankee English of Cape Cod or of Boston, the Russian of
Moscow or of Smolensk) or broader regional ones, such as Delaware Valley English,
Australian English, or Tuscan Italian. Such entities are of unequal rank; South Carolina
English, for instance, is included in Southern American English. Regional dialects do have
some internal variation, but the differences within a regional dialect are supposedly smaller
than differences between two regional dialects of the same rank. In a number of areas
(“linguistic landscapes”) where the dialectal differentiation is essentially even, it is hardly
justified to speak of regional dialects. This uniformity has led many linguists to deny the
meaningfulness of such a notion altogether; very frequently, however, bundles of
isoglosses—or even a single isogloss of major importance—permit the division of a territory
into regional dialects. The public is often aware of such divisions, usually associating them
with names of geographic regions or provinces or with some feature of pronunciation—e.g.,
Southern English or Russian o-dialects and a-dialects. Especially clear-cut cases of division
are those in which geographic isolation has played the principal role—e.g., Australian
English or Louisiana French.

2. Social Dialects

Another important axis of differentiation is that of social strata. In many localities, dialectal
differences are connected with social classes, educational levels, or both. More-highly
educated speakers and, often, those belonging to a higher social class tend to use more
features belonging to the standard language, whereas the original dialect of the region is
better preserved in the speech of the lower and less-educated classes. In large urban centres,
innovations unknown in the former dialect of the region frequently develop. Thus, in cities
the social stratification of dialects is especially relevant and far-reaching, whereas in rural
areas, with a conservative way of life, the traditional geographic dialectal differentiation
prevails.

Educational differences between speakers strongly affect the extent of their vocabulary. In
addition, practically every profession has its own expressions, which include the technical
terminology and sometimes also the casual words or idioms peculiar to the group. Slang too
is characterized mainly by a specific vocabulary and is much more flexible than an ordinary
dialect, as it is subject to fashion and depends strongly on the speaker’s age group. Slang—
just as a professional dialect—is used mainly by persons who are in a sense bidialectal; i.e.,
they speak some other dialect or the standard language, in addition to slang. Dialectal
differences also often run parallel with the religious or racial division of the population.
B. REGIONAL AND SOCIAL DIALECTS

The classic example of a dialect is the regional dialect: the distinct form of a language spoken
in a certain geographical area. For example, we might speak of Ozark dialects or Appalachian
dialects, on the grounds that inhabitants of these regions have certain distinct linguistic
features that differentiate them from speakers of other forms of English. We can also speak of
a social dialect: the distinct form of a language spoken by members of a specific
socioeconomic class, such as the working-class dialects in England (Akmajian 2001).

C. DIALECTICAL THEORY

The fundamental assumption of social dialectical theorists is that all relationships,

friendships, romantic relationships, family relationships are interwoven with multiple
contradictions. Social dialectics is not a single theory but a family of theories (Montgomery
and Baxter 1998). Like any family, the various dialectical approaches share some features in
common yet differ in others. This entry emphasizes the common features.

a. Relating as a Process of Contradiction

The central concept of dialectical theorists is the contradiction. A contradiction is the
dynamic interplay between unified opposites. Three terms are important in
understanding this definition: opposites, unified, and dynamic interplay. This
discussion of commonly identified contradictions does not exhaust the list of possible
unified oppositions that face relationship pairs, but it provides an introduction to at
least some of the dialectical tensions that friends, romantic partners, marital couples,
and families face as they conduct their everyday relating (Brown, Werner, and Altman
1998; Conville 1991; Rawlins 1992).
b. Contradictions and Change
Social dialectical scholars agree that the dynamic interplay of unified opposites results
in ongoing and inevitable change for relationship partners. Although the ongoing
tension of oppositions can be negotiated in temporary moments or periods in which
all oppositions are responded to at the same time, it is much more common to see an
ongoing pattern in which one pole is temporarily responded to at a cost of negating
the other pole. The communicative actions that parties enact at a given moment
change how a contradiction is experienced at a later point in time. For example, if
 parties embrace spontaneity and abandon planning, this will create pressure at some
point for greater certainty and predictability in their lives.
c. Communication and Contradictions
Dialectical contradictions are constituted in the communicative practices of
relationship parties. It is through communication that contradictions are given a social
life. How parties constitute a given contradiction at Time 1 affects how that
contradiction will be experienced at Time 2. Several kinds of communicative
practices have been identified in existing dialectical work (Baxter and Montgomery
1996).

Common to all five of these dialectical practices—spiraling inversion, segmentation,

balance, integration, and recalibration—is an appreciation of the dialectical nature of relating.
However, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) also have described two communicative practices
that they regard as less functional in negotiating the dialectics of relating.

In communicative denial, relationship parties attempt to extinguish one opposition of a

given dialectic, ignoring its existence by wishing it away. A pair may say that they are
"totally open" with one another, but such a declaration belies the importance of discretion. In
enacting disorientation, parties construct contradiction as a totally negative problem which
overwhelms them and brings them to a nihilistic state of despair. A disoriented partner might
say something like "Why bother to make the marriage work, anyway? No matter what you
do, you'll be unhappy."

1. The Theory of Dialectical Materialism

Dialectical materialism was first introduced by Karl Marx. Karl Marx was born in the city of
Trier, Prussia on May 5, 1818. From a Jewish family and later converted to Christianity. In
his early life, there were few signs that Karl Marx would develop a philosophy for the rise of
the working class and the peasantry. First, this materialism emerged as a result of the great
class struggle and emerged as a result of the industrial revolution. According to dialectical
materialism, this world is nothing but objects in motion, objects will not move except in
space and time. There is no place for God in this world, therefore dialectical materialism is
the fruit of the theory of motion and development.11 This theory of motion and development
is in accordance with the prevailing dialectical laws. Humans or living things in this world
will always move in space and time, it is impossible for humans to move in their conscious
space (in their minds). There is no place for God because God is neither in space nor in time.
Another root of Marxism is the so-called 'English economy', that is, Marx's analysis of the
capitalist system as it developed in England.

Second, this materialism emerged from Marxism, which historically was the starting point of
Marxism, which was 'German philosophy'. To begin with, we say that the basis of Marxism is
materialism. That is, Marxism began with the idea that matter is the essence of all reality, and
that matter constitutes reason and not the other way around. In other words, thoughts and
everything that is said come from thoughts, for example, ideas about art, law, politics,
morality, and so on. These things actually come from the material world. 'Intellect', ie
thoughts and thought processes, is a product of the brain; and the brain itself, which means
also ideas, arises at a certain stage of the development of living matter.

So, the reason is a product of the material world. Therefore, to understand the true nature of
human consciousness and society, as expressed by Marx himself, the question is "not to start
from what is said, imagined, or imagined by humans in order to arrive at what is called a
human being in the form it is now; but rather from human (real) and active, and based on the
basis of real human life processes that show the development of reflexes and ideological
echoes of this life process.

2. The Theory of Hegel's Dialectical

Hegel is known as a philosopher who uses dialectics as a method of philosophizing. Dialectic

according to Hegel is two things that are contradicted and then reconciled, commonly known
as thesis (assertion), antithesis (denial), and synthesis (unity of contradictions). The
affirmation must be in the form of a sensory-empirical concept of understanding. The
understanding contained in it comes from everyday words, spontaneous, not reflective so that
it seems abstract, general, static, and conceptual. This understanding is explained radically so
that in the process of thinking it loses firmness and melts away. Denial is the concept of the
first understanding (affirmation) being contradicted so that the empty, formal, indeterminate,
and unlimited second understanding emerges. According to Hegel, the second concept
actually contains the meaning of the first concept. This second concept of thought is also
explained radically so that it loses firmness and melts away. Contradiction is a dialectical
motor (road to truth) so contradictions must be able to create concepts that survive and
evaluate each other. The unity of contradiction becomes a tool to complete two opposing
concepts of understanding in order to create a new, more ideal concept (Wikipedia, 2012) As
a simple analogy there is 'egg' as a thesis, which then emerges 'chicken' as a synthesis, whose
antithesis is 'not chicken' '. In dialectic, this doesn't mean 'chicken' destroying 'egg' but in this
case, 'egg' has surpassed itself to become 'chicken' by a process, which then returns to the
egg, and continues like that. So dialectics is a dynamic movement towards change.

3. Deactical Relational Theory

The theory of relational dialectics is thought of in communication theory. This thinking can
be interpreted as "the knots of contradiction in personal relationships or the successive
interactions of opposites or tendencies to oppose. This theory, first proposed by Leslie Baxter
and WK Rawlins in 1988, respectively, defines the pattern of communication between
relationship partners as a result of tension. endemic dialectics, which suggests that life in
communication is characterized by tensions or conflicts between individuals. These conflicts
occur when a person tries to impose one's desires on another. Relational Dialectics is an
elaboration of Mikhail Bakhtin's idea that life is an open monologue and humans feel the
collision between opposing desires and needs in relational communication. Baxter is part of
the Dialectical Tension which reminds us that relationships are constantly changing, and that
successful and fulfilling relationships require constant attention. Although Baxter's
description of Relational Dialectics is thorough, it is by no means precise or all-inclusive
because we all experience different tensions with different activities at work.

Departing from the thought of Bakhtin, Baxter, and Montgomery also formed the thought of
the Dialectical Vision. We can explain this vision of human behavior by comparing it with
two approaches that can be used: the monologic and dualistic approaches. . The monologic
approach, describes contradictions as relations only. The dualistic approach sees the two parts
of a contradiction as two separate and unrelated parts

Assumptions in the Relational Dialectical Theory Relational dialectical theory is based on

four main assumptions that reflect its arguments about related life:

1. The relationship is not linear

2. Life in relationships is marked by changes

3. Contradiction is a fundamental fact in relationships

4. Communication to manage and negotiate contradictions in a relationship

Dialectical Elements (concepts): Building Tension The following elements are fundamental
in a dialectical perspective: The Totality of Contradictions of the Praxis Movement

1. Totality, states that people in a relationship are interdependent. For example, when Jeff
gets a promotion that requires him to travel from before, Eleanor has to deal with times when
Jeff is not home. He would compensate by making more friends outside of their relationship,
and this would affect Jeff when he was home he had to meet new friends and share Eleanor's
time with them.

2. Contradiction, referring to the opposition of two contradictory elements, is also the main
characteristic of the dialectical approach. An example is when Eleanor wants to tell Jeff that
she loves him but also wants to withhold that information to protect himself, at that moment
she is experiencing a contradiction.

3. Movement, refers to the nature of the process of the relationship and the changes that occur
in that relationship over time. An example is a comparison between a person's relationship
when he met his partner with their current relationship.

4. Praxis, refers to the sense that humans are decision-makers. For example, a person must
accept all the consequences of the choices he has chosen, for example, if the person chooses
to be in a relationship with someone, then he must hang out with friends, family, and relatives
as well.

D. SOCIAL DIALECTICAL OF PRAXIS

Dialectics can be understood as "The Theory of the Union of opposites". There are three
elements or concepts in understanding dialectics, namely first, Thesis, second as opposed to
the first called antithesis, From the battle of these two elements, a third element emerges
which reconciles the two, which is called synthesis. Thus, dialectics can also be referred to as
a thinking process in totality, namely each element negates each other (denies and is denied),
contradicts each other (against and is opposed), and mediates with each other (intermediates
and is mediated).

Social praxis or social practice is a human activity. So, What is the relationship between
language and social praxis? Study of relationship dialectics between language and its
environment has spawned research topics inunder the umbrella of ecolinguistics, and since
that is also the scope of application of the concept of ecologyin linguistics is growing
rapidly,in the fields of pragmatics, discourse analysis, anthropological linguistics, theoretical
linguistics,language teaching, and various branchesother linguistics (Fill and
Muhlhausler,2001:1). Theoretical approach and analytical models in ecolinguistic studies
were formulated in the 1990s,when Jorgen Chr Bang and Jorgen Door(1993) introduced the
dialectical theoryecolinguistics.

According to the ecolinguistic view dialectical (Steffensen, 2007), language is the part
that forms and at the same time shaped by social praxis. Language is a social product of
human activity and at the same time language also change and influence activities human or
social praxis. 5 With Thus, there is a dialectical relationship between language and social
practice or praxis. Concept Social praxis in this context refers toin all actions, activities and
behaviorsociety, be kind to each other society and the environment the surrounding nature.

In dialectical theory (The three dimension of social praxis theory) ,Social praxis includes
three dimensions, namely: ideological, sociological, and dimensions biological.

1. Ideological dimension
The ideological dimension is psychic system, cognitive and mental system individual
and collective. which is reflected in language, linguistic repertoire with its meaning
and behavior. For example : The similarity of traits possessed by corruptors and rats is
recordedin the cognitive community, speech forms a rat metaphor.
2. Sociological Dimension
Regarding how we organize relationships with others, to build, establish and maintain
harmonious individual relationships collectively, such as a sense of mutual love for
one another in family, between friends, neighbors, or within larger social
environment, such aspolitical system in a country. For example : The nature of rats
 who like dirty environments is understood as the behavior of corruptors who also
likes dirty work related to fraud or abusestate money, companies and so on.
3. Dimension Biology
Dimension Bology is related to our existence Biologically side by side with species
others such as plants, animals, earth, sea and others (Bundsgaard and
Steffensen,2000:7). For example : illustrated by the nature of corruptors who are
identical to mice, where both of them have the nature of liking the environment dirty
and smelly.

The implications of the dialectical relationship between language and social praxis is that
the study of language also means the study of social praxis, and with Thus the theory of
language is also a theorysocial praxis.

For this reason, the study of ecolinguisticsin dilectical theory is the study ofideological
dimension interrelation, dimension sociological and biological dimensions in language. This
is the essence of dialectical theory, which then gave birth to four study model secolinguistics,
namely the dialogue model, modelexist (triple model of reference), model semantic matrices,
and the core contradiction model (Bang and Door, 1993). Of the four model secolinguistics,
the first three models, namely the dialogue model, the diexist model (triple model of
reference), and matrix model semantics will be reviewed further for then applied in analyzing
text.
 CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION

A dialect is a variety of English which is associated with a particular region and/or

social class. To state the obvious, speakers from different geographical regions speak English
rather differently: hence we refer to 'Geordie' (Newcastle English), 'New York English' or
'Cornish English

A social dialectical perspective has been employed in understanding a wide range of

relationship types, including platonic friendships, polygamous families, abusive families,
stepfamilies, friendships among coworkers, marital couples, romantic pairs, couple
relationships with their social network, the relationships between parents and their adolescent
children, the post-divorce relationship between exspouses, and families who face a dying
member.

Dialectical researchers have used a variety of methods studying contradictions. Some

scholars have used in-depth interviews in which relationship parties are asked simply to talk
about the details of their relationship without explicit attention focused on contradictions;
these interviews are subsequently analyzed by the researcher for evidence of contradiction.
Other scholars have used in-depth interviewing to probe relationship parties explicitly about
their awareness of, and reactions to, contradictions.

Sometimes, dialectically oriented researchers have employed narrative analysis of

stories of relating told by participants. Other dialectically oriented researchers have employed
traditional survey methods to solicit parties' perceptions of the extent to which they
experience dialectical tensions. Field-based ethnography has also been employed by
dialectically oriented researchers. Finally, some dialectical researchers have coded the
communicative behaviors of interacting partners for dialectical oppositions. Clearly, there is
no single way to study the contradictions of relating.

Praxis refers to the sense that humans are decision makers. For example, a person
must accept all the consequences of something he chooses. The word praxis is often used as
an alternative to the word practice or action. In general, the word praxis refers to a way of
thinking. Meanwhile, specifically, the word praxis refers to a theological method or model.
Social praxis or social practice is a human activity.

Social praxis, which includes the dimensions biological, sociological, and ideological
have interrelation with language. Language affect and at the same times imultaneously
influenced by social praxis. The dialectical relationship between language and language. This
social praxis has given birth to studies dialectical or linguistic ecolinguistics dialectical. A
social dialectical perspective has been employed in understanding a wide range of
relationship types, including platonic friendships, polygamous families, abusive families,
stepfamilies, friendships among coworkers, marital couples, romantic pairs, couple
relationships with their social network, the relationships between parents and their adolescent
children, the post-divorce relationship between exspouses, and families who face a dying
member.
 REFERENCES

Berger, Peter; luckman, Thomas. 1990. Tafsir Sosial Atas Kenyataan: Sebuah risalah tentang
sosiologi pengetahuan/ Peter L Berger dan Thomas Luckman.Terjemahan: Hasan
Basari. LP3S, Jakarta, anggota IKAPI. 1990.

Dialectical theory. Encyclopedia.com

https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-
maps/dialectical-theory

Bang, J. Chr. dan Door, J. (1996).Language, Ecology, and Truth –Dialogue and Dialectics.
[online]Dapat diakses lewat situs:www.pdfio.com/k-22479.html

Steffensen, Sune Vork. (2007). “Language,Ecology and Society: AnIntroduction to

Dialectical Linguistics”. Dalam Steffensen, S.Vdan J. Nash (Eds). Language,Ecology
and Society – a DialectalApproach. London: Continuum.