Dichotomy in Language
1.      Fisis Versus Nomos (Naturalis Vs Konversi)
Physis has two principal meanings. It can refer to the cosmic order as a whole, or to the prime constituent(s) of that order: in these contexts it can often be translated as ‘reality’. It can also refer to the intrinsic characteristics of a thing, especially a living thing, or to the thing’s growth towards these characteristics. This dynamic aspect of physis can seem to give it a prescriptive as well as a descriptive force: it is good that things grow towards their mature state and achieving it constitutes their flourishing.
Nomos (plural: nomoi) can signify both the unwritten customs and the written laws of a society, and sometimes also an unwritten universal law of divine origin. Even when it refers to a custom, its force is always prescriptive: it indicates not merely a practice, but what the majority accepts as the right practice. However, increasing travel and historical researches heightened awareness of how particular nomoi differ between cultures and over time, and the consequent sense of their transience prompted growing speculation about their authority.
2.      Anomaly Versus Analogy (Teratur Vs tidak Teratur)
The debate over the language of analogy and anomaly has been ongoing since the days of ancient Greece, and still there are followers. Supporting each opinion is based on the fact the reality of language that are both accurate and with an equally strong argument. This debate seems like a railway line that has no end of the meeting, each based on different poles.
Even if the debate analogy and this anomaly has developed since so long time but in fact the reality of this language is still relevant and current issues with the times. Issues analogy and anomaly is indeed related issues concerning the development of language. While language is still evolving, it issues an analogy and anomaly still always be attached to them.
One form of the development of Indonesian language is the form of absorption into Indonesian words derived from foreign languages influencers. The absorption of foreign words into the Indonesian language gave birth to linguistic problems that can be highlighted from the perspective of analogy and anomaly language.
Terminology Analogy and Anomalies
Analogies and anomalies as a terminology have been known since the time of Plato and Aristotle. The emergence of the terminology is because of the popular theory of analogy and anomaly at the time which each has supporters.
Group supporters say that the nature of this analogy has regularity; humans also have regularity, as well as with language. Analogy groups say that language is regular. As evidence in English the plural of boy to be boys, tables into tables, flower into flowers.
Regularity of language brings consequences to the formulation of a grammar. The analogy was adopted by Plato and Aristotle. The principle of this analogy is actually a transformation of logic and mathematical regularity in the language (Kaelan, 1998: 36).
Instead of anomalies argues that language is located in the form of irregular (irregular). As evidence them point out the plural of English child to be children, man became men in the daily reality of why there synonymy and homonymy. In this sense that language is intrinsically natural. The opinion of the anomaly is still used as one feature of language that language is essentially orbiter (Porera, 1986:46).
Analogy is the regularity of language, a unit of language can be said if analogical conformity or not to deviate with the conventions that have been enacted.
Anomaly is a deviation or lack of language disorder. A unit can be said anomalies if the unit does not conform or deviate with the conventions in force.
Summary can be prepared in simple language that the analogy is regularity, while the anomaly is the lack of language disorder or distortion of language.
In addition to this definition in the dictionary of linguistic terminology essay Kridalaksana analogies interpreted with different meanings, namely: “The process or result of the formation of language because of the influence of other patterns in the language
the difference this meaning is reasonable, because the dictionary intended meaning is linguistic meaning associated with linguistic. Whose the meaning of analogy is earlier is related to the philosophical meaning of language.
Therefore, as a basis for further descriptions is used then the meaning is the meaning of a philosophical rather than a linguistic meaning: namely, that analogy is the regularities of language, and the anomaly is a deviation or lack of language disorder.
3.      Langue Versus Parole (konsep Vs ujaran)
A term introduced in de Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale to distinguish between language (langue) as an abstract system of signs and rules, and the spoken word (parole) as the concrete realization of language as it is used. Langue is characterized as a static system of symbols with broad (social) value, due to the invariant and functional nature of its elements. Instances of parole are based on this system of langue and vary according to register, age, dialect, among other factors. The goal of structuralist linguistics is to research the systematic regularities of langue using data from parole (corpus), while parole itself can be researched in various disciplines, like phonetics, psychology, and physiology.
4.      Deep Structure Versus Surface Structure (Konsep dari dalam Vs ucapan)
In 1957, Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Chomsky believed there are considerable similarities between languages’ deep structures, and that these structures reveal properties, common to all languages that surface structures conceal. However, this may not have been the central motivation for introducing deep structure. Transformations had been proposed prior to the development of deep structure as a means of increasing the mathematical and descriptive power of context-free grammars. Similarly, deep structure was devised largely for technical reasons relating to early semantic theory.
Though transformations continue to be important in Chomsky’s current theories, he has now abandoned the original notion of Deep Structure and Surface Structure. Initially, two additional levels of representation were introduced (LF — Logical Form, and PF — Phonetic Form), and then in the 1990s Chomsky sketched out a new program of research known as Minimalism, in which Deep Structure and Surface Structure no longer featured and PF and LF remained as the only levels of representation.
To complicate the understanding of the development of Noam Chomsky’s theories, the precise meanings of Deep Structure and Surface Structure have changed over time — by the 1970s, the two were normally referred to simply as D-Structure and S-Structure by Chomsky an linguists. In particular, the idea that the meaning of a sentence was determined by its Deep Structure (taken to its logical conclusions by the generative semanticists during the same period) was dropped for good by Chomsky an linguists when LF took over this role (previously, Chomsky and Ray Jack had begun to argue that meaning was determined by both Deep and Surface Structure).
5.      Syntagmatic Versus Paradigmatic (Kaitan kesamping Vs Kaitan Kebawah)
Basic linguistic relationships which describe the complex structure of a language system. Paradigmatic relationships between linguistic elements can be established by use of the substitution test at the vertical level. Thus the initial consonants in beer, deer, peer form a paradigmatic class, as well as words such as today and tomorrow in the sentence: She will arrive today/tomorrow. Syntagmatic relationships are defined by the ability of elements to be combined horizontally (linearly), e.g. the relationship between She will arrive and today. De Saussure (1916) called paradigmatic relationships ‘associative’ relationships, because they represent the relationship between individual elements in specific environments with such elements in the memory which can potentially replace them. Paradigmatic relationships are based on the criteria of selection and distribution of linguistic elements, and are, for example, the basis for establishing the phoneme inventory of a language through the construction of minimal pairs, the replacement of sounds in an otherwise constant environment that leads to a difference in meaning. Elements which are related to each other paradigmatically can potentially occur in the same context but are mutually exclusive in an actual concrete context because they stand in opposition to one another. The distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships is relevant to all levels of description;
6.      Synchronic Versus Diachronic
(Mempelajari bahasa dalam satu decade Vs. Mempelajari bahasa dari masa ke masa)
·         Synchrony (Mempelajari bahasa dalam satu decade)
Saussure proposed that language as a system of signs is studied as a complete system at any given point in time. Like chess, the important part of language is how pieces move and the positions of all pieces relative to one another. The shape of each piece is only important in that its potential can be recognized.
A synchronic relationship is one where two similar things exist at the same time. Modern American English and British English have a synchronic relationship.
·         Diachronic (Mempelajari bahasa dari masa ke masa)
Diachronic is the change in the meaning of words over time.
For example in the way that ‘magic’ meant ‘good’ in youth culture for a period during the 1980s (and, to a lesser extent, beyond).
It is thus the study of language in terms of how it visibly changes in usage. It is based in the dictionary meaning of words.
A diachronic relationship is where related things exist separated by time. 12th century English and 21st century English have a diachronic relationship.
7.      Prescription Versus Description (Tradisonal Vs Modern)
In linguistics, prescription denotes normative practices on such aspects of language use as spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and syntax. It includes judgments on what usages are socially proper and politically correct. Its aims may be to establish a standard language, to teach what is perceived within a particular society to be correct forms of language, or to advise on effective communication. If usage preferences are conservative, prescription might (appear to) be resistant to language change; if the usage preferences are radical, prescription may produce neologisms.
Prescriptive approaches to language are often contrasted with descriptive linguistics, which observes and records how language is practiced. The basis of linguistic research is text (corpus) analysis and field studies; yet description includes each researcher’s observations of his and her (own) language usage. Despite apparent opposition, prescription and description (how language should be used, and how language is used) exist in a complementary dynamic tension of mutual linguistic support.
The main aims of linguistic prescription are to define standardized language forms either generally (what is Standard English?) or for specific purposes (what style and register is appropriate in, for example, a legal brief?) and to formulate these in such a way as to make them easily taught or learned. Prescription can apply to most aspects of language: spelling, grammar, semantics, pronunciation and register. Most people would subscribe to the consensus that in all of these areas it is meaningful to describe some kinds of aberrations as incorrect or at least as inappropriate in particular contexts. Prescription aims to draw workable guidelines for language users seeking advice in such matters.

sumber : Bunda Kindi