Beyond technical standardization: community representation and institutional power in Madurese orthography reform

This study examines the Madurese orthography debates as a sociopolitical process rather than a technical issue of phonological representation, with the objectives of assessing stakeholder attitudes toward the 2011 systems, identifying weaknesses in the 2011 reform across planning, implementation, and evaluation phases, and reconceptualizing orthography reform as a multi-actor governance process. Using a quantitative-descriptive design, data were collected through an online survey of 263 purposively selected respondents, including linguists, educators, policymakers, and community members, and analyzed using descriptive quantitative analysis. The findings show broad agreement that the 1973 orthography is no longer adequate for contemporary linguistic and educational needs, yet the majority of respondents do not regard the 2011 orthography as a satisfactory alternative. Participants reported social and pedagogical consequences of the reform, including orthographic dualism, communication tensions, and inconsistent instructional practices. They also emphasized the need for inclusive planning, strengthened educational infrastructure, and shared evaluation mechanisms involving both institutional and community actors. The study contributes to linguistics by demonstrating that orthographic systems function as symbolic arenas in which linguistic authority, cultural identity, and political legitimacy are negotiated, and it advances language planning theory by highlighting the importance of process-oriented, participatory governance in achieving sustainable orthographic standardization