Idiolect
According to Nababan (1989:2), “sociolinguistics consists of two words; socio and linguistics. Socio is related to society groups. Linguistics is the scientific study of language. So, sociolinguistics is the scientific study of language related to speakers as a part of society;. Some investigators have found it is appropriate to introduce a distinction between sociolinguistics or micro-sociolinguistics and the sociology of language or micro-sociolinguistics. Coulma in Myasari (2005:8) says that micro-sociolinguistics investigates how social structure influences the way people to talk and how language varieties and pattern of use correlate with social attributes such a class, sex and age. On the other hand, macro-sociolinguistics what societies do with they language, there is, attitudes and attachment that account for the function distribution of speech form in society, language shift, maintenance, and replacement, the delimitation and interaction of speech communities. (Chaer and Leonie Agustina 1995:82) Idiolect is variation of languages that have individual sounds. Idiolect is term that used to sign language variety that is special someone characteristic. Without see the speakers, usually we can know who is speak, from the intonation pattern and some words that used, we can guess who spoke. Of courser if we know that people before. "Almost all speakers make use of several idiolects, depending on the circumstances of communication. For example, when family members talk to each other, their speech habits typically differ from those any one of them would use in, say, an interview with a prospective employer. The concept of idiolect refers to a very specific phenomenon--the speech variety, or linguistic system, used by a particular individual. All those idiolects that have enough in common to appear at least superficially alike belong to a dialect. The term dialect, then, is an abstraction."(Zdeněk Salzmann, 2003). The linguist approaches the problem of questioned authorship from the theoretical position that every native speaker has their own distinct and individual version of the language they speak and write, their own idiolect, and the assumption that this idiolect will manifest itself through distinctive and idiosyncratic choices in texts (Halliday et al 1964:75, Abercrombie 1969). Every speaker has a very large active vocabulary built up over many years, which will differ from the vocabularies others have similarly built up not only in terms of actual items but also in preferences for selecting certain items rather than others. Thus, whereas in principle any speaker/writer can use any word at any time, speakers in fact tend to make typical and individuating co-selections of preferred words. This implies that it should be possible to devise a method of linguistic fingerprinting – in other words that the linguistic ‘impressions’ created by a given 4 speaker/writer should be usable, just like a signature, to identify them. So far, however, practice is a long way behind theory and no one has even begun to speculate about how much and what kind of data would be needed to uniquely characterize an idiolect, nor how the data, once collected, would be analyzed and stored; indeed work on the very much simpler task of identifying the linguistic characteristics or ‘fingerprints’ of whole genres is still in its infancy (Biber 1988, 1995, Stubbs 1996).
