i
Students’ Selection of First
-Person Reference
Addressing Terms toward Teachers
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Desy Rizki Lukitasari
(112013002)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS
UNIVERSITAS KRISTEN SATYA WACANA
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INSIDE COVER PAGE ... i
PERNYATAAN TIDAK PLAGIAT... ii
PERYATAAN PERSETUJUAN AKSES... iii
APPROVAL PAGE ... iv
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ... vi
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii
LIST OF CHARTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... ix
Abstract ... 1
INTRODUCTION ... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 3
Code Selection of Address Terms ... 3
The Terms Aku and Saya as First-Person References ... 5
Politeness Theory in Relation to Address Terms ... 7
Results of Previous Studies ... 8
METHODOLOGY ... 11
Research Questions ... 11
Setting and Context of the Study ... 11
Method…. ... 11
Participants and Data Collection ... 12
Data Analysis ... 13
Research Instruments ... 13
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 15
viii
1. MAN Students Who Used Saya or Aku Exclusively toward Teachers ... 16
2. MAN Students Who Used Either Saya or Aku Depending on the Situations toward Teachers ... 16
B. Factors Influencing MAN Students‟ Selection of First-Person References When Communicating with Teachers ... 17
1. Factors of MAN Students‟ Selection in Using Saya or Aku Exclusively toward Teachers ... 17
1a. Factors of MAN Students‟ Selection of Using Saya Exclusively toward Teachers ... 17
1b. Factors of MAN Students‟ Selection of Using Aku Exclusively toward Teachers ... 19
2. Factors of MAN Students‟ Selection in Using Either Saya or Aku, Depending on the Situations, toward Teachers... 20
2a. Factors of Students‟ Preference, Frequency, and View of Polite Form in Using First-Person References ... 20
2b. Social Setting and Formality Factors ... 26
2c. Participant Factor ... 28
2d. Other Factors ... 30
CONCLUSION ... 33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... 35
REFERENCES ... 36
APPENDIX A ... 39
ix
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1: What first-person references do MAN students use in referring themselves as saya
and/or aku toward teachers? ... 15
Chart 2: Factors for Always Using Saya When Communicating with Teachers ... 17
Chart 3: Factos for Always Using Aku When Communicating with Teachers ... 19
Chart 4.1: In general, which first-person reference do you like more when communicating
with teachers? ... 20
Chart 4.2: In general, which first-person reference do you use more often when
communicating with teachers? ... 21
Chart 4.3: Which first-person reference do you think is polite when communicating with
teachers? ... 21
Chart 5: Factors for Choosing Saya as Students' (Who Chose Either Saya or Aku) General
Preference When Communicating with Teachers ... 23
Chart 6: Factors for Choosing Saya as the Polite form of First-Person Reference to
Communicate with Teachers ... 25
Chart 7: Situations in Using First-Person References When Communicating with Teachers for
Students Who Chose Saya and Aku... 26
Chart 8: The Teachers Whom MAN Students Usually Use First-Person References with ... 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Factors of Students‟ (Who Chose Either Saya or Aku) General Preferences in
Frequently Using First-Person Reference Addressing Terms ... 24
Table 2: Factors Influencing MAN Students Who Used Either Saya or Aku in Their Term
1
STUDENTS‟ SELECTION OF FIRST
-PERSON REFERENCE
ADDRESSING TERMS TOWARD TEACHERS
Desy Rizki Lukitasari
Abstract
Indonesian addressing terms saya and aku have been a debatable topic among scholars regarding language shift appeared lately. Using Holmes‟ theory of code selection, this study attempts to investigate Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) students‟ practices in using first -person references when communicating with teachers by identifying their selection of using self-references and factors influencing their selection(s). This research used questionnaires (closed and open-ended questions) and stimulated response cards (closed-ended questions) to obtain the data from 120 students of grade 11 in MAN Salatiga. The results of this study showed that the students‟ tendency of self-reference was saya as their implication of traditional Islamic belief toward teachers although there were some students who used either saya or aku depending on the situations. The essential factors influencing the students‟ selection of saya toward teachers are politeness, respect, and teacher‟s age whereas the more -considered factors in practicing either saya or aku are teacher‟s structural position (status relationship), student-teacher relationship (social distance), teacher‟s age and personality (participant). Thus, politeness is included in the scope of the study.
Key words: Indonesian addressing terms, saya and aku, language shift, code selection, first-person references, self-references, politeness, respect, status relationship, social distance, participant.
INTRODUCTION
Every language has its own variants of address terms to communicate with different
interlocutors, including those used to refer to oneself. Unlike English which only has “a
limited set of pronouns” in terms of “self- and addressee-reference” (Flannery, 2010),
Indonesian has choices for it. Specifically, Indonesian has saya and aku to address personal
pronoun „I‟. They are used differently depending on “social variables such as formality,
neutrality, and intimacy” (Djenar, 2007). It is traditionally prescribed that students should use
the term saya in self-referring totheir teachers instead of the term aku.This is in regard to the
nature of saya and aku use. According to Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (KBBI), saya is
2
The practical use of first-person reference addressing terms has an imminent relation
to Brownand Levinson‟s theory of politeness which proposes that there are two kinds of
politeness behavior: positive politeness and negative politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987)
as cited in Sadeghoghli and Niroomand (2016) define positive politeness as the strategy the
speaker attempts to reduce the distance between others whereas negative politeness is the
strategy the speaker attempts to value other speakers‟ authority (p.33). In consequence, aku
may be used in conversations to maintain positive politeness and saya is used for negative
politeness. Traditionally, however, since students are expected to use saya towards their
teachers, negative politeness seems to be the prescribed norm within the student-teacher
relationship.
In Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) Salatiga, some students may be aware of the
importance of using saya in front of teachers while few of them might still use aku when
communicating with their teachers. In line with traditional Islamic belief (teachers are those
who must be respected), MAN students should use saya instead of aku toward teachers. This
study, then, attempts to investigate MAN students‟ selection of first-person reference in
referring themselves as saya and/or aku toward teachers and identify the factors influencing
their selection of the terms saya and/or aku when communicating with teachers.
The significance of this study is to discover patterns in using saya and aku which
reflect students‟ value and nature, including politeness, in the social interaction with teachers.
The findings may inform language policy development in determining future orientations on
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Code Selection of Address Terms
The term code s defined by Wardhaugh (2006) as “any kind of system that two or
more people employ for communication” (p.88).Regardingthis, Haviland (1996) as cited in
Ray and Biswas (2011) mentions in a more general context that people are inclined to use a
language differently and their choices for it is influenced by social status and class difference
(p. 34-35). Hymes (1972), with another term, also claims that “rules of speaking are the ways
in which speakers associate particular modes of speaking, topic or message forms, with
particular settings and activities” (p.36).
According to Holmes (2013), there are four social factors which ”may be relevant in
accounting for the choice of variety or code in a particular situation” (p.25). They are (1)
social distance; the better people know each other the less formal the language is, (2) status
relationship; people with lower social status will speak formally to people with higher social
status (e.g. teacher-student, parents-children, boss-worker, etc), (3) formality; based on the
domain or social interaction, and (4) function; the objective(s) of language used in particular
context (p.25-26). In a more specific explanation, Holmes (2013) clarifies that there are social
factors and dimensions to describe people‟s different language choice. The social factors
include participants, social setting, and function, whereas the social dimensions include
social distance scale, status scale, formality scale, and two functional scales (referential and
affective) (Holmes, 2013, p.8-9). Furthermore, Hymes (1972, p.59-65) grouped sixteen
components of speech in an acronym of the word SPEAKING (Settings, Participants, Ends,
Act sequences, Keys, Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genres) to analyze how people
communicate and how it is patterned. In a more specific explanation, the word S (settings)
4
setting; formal to informal, etc), the word P (participants) stands for speaker, addressor,
hearer, and addressee of communication, the word E (ends) stands for purposes of outcomes
and purposes of goals (in view), the word A (act sequences) stands for message form (the
structures or rules) and message content (the topics), the word K (keys) stands for keys to set
the tone or manner when speaking, I (instrumentalities) stands for channels (medium of
speech) and forms of speech (languages, dialects, codes, varieties, and registers), N (norms)
stands for norms of interaction (social relationships through speaking) and norms of
interpretation (community beliefs), and G (genres) stands for any kinds of speech (poem,
tale, prayer, etc). Thus, the factors explained provide the basis to select the appropriate code
in communication within a multilingual context, including variants of address terms.
Many researchers have conducted studies on address terms in the last three decades
and come up with different definitions of them. For instance, Afful (2007) believes that
“address forms represent very fundamental means of forging human interaction, thus
performing an interpersonal role” (p. 179). Indeed, as Moghaddam, Yazdanpanah, and
Abolhassanizadeh (2013) point out, address terms are ”strongly believed to manifest
interpersonal relationships, especially the extent and degrees of politeness in a society”
(p.55). The reasons of using terms of address vary as stated in Dewi (2009), “the reasons of
using other terms of address can be various; from the close relationship of them, or formal
and informal situation” (p.5). Using address terms can also be based on the goal expected to
express by someone, “people use different forms of address to express their intentions” (Qin,
2008, p.420). Therefore, as Wardhaugh (2006, p.88) believes that people tend to always
choose an appropriate code in daily communication, the code selection of address terms is
5
Based on the concept of address terms, specific use of address terms utilized by an
addresser to an addressee has been raised by sociolinguists. According to Qin (2008), “the
study of personal address has always been a popular topic within sociolinguistics, because
terms of address open communicative acts and set the tone for the interchanges that follow”
(p.409). Moghaddam et.al (2013) point out that personal pronoun is considered as a kind of
address terms used in Persian language; “personal pronouns: pronouns, apart from their
grammatical functions, having been reported to perform a social function by signaling the
disparity in the status of the speaker and addressee” (p.58).
The Terms Saya and Aku as First-Person References
Self-reference or person reference is not rigid since it is highly influenced by variants
of a language. Djenar (2007) proposes that “self-reference is not a static matter, that once a
speaker calculates which term is appropriate for which addressee and in which situation, and
arrives at a choice, this choice is fixed” (p.24). She also believes that “there is no uniformity
in the speakers‟ choice of term” (Djenar, 2007, p.38). Therefore, Flannery (2010) argues that
“code, context, and cognition all play a role in the choice of person reference term and,
through these choices, social roles between interlocutors are instantiated (i.e. exploited,
maintained and developed)” (p.8). As a result, variants of self-reference appear in languages.
In Indonesian, there are many variants to refer oneself as I. Djenar (2007) mentions
that “Indonesian speakers have at their disposal several alternatives for saying „I‟”, such as
personal pronoun saya and aku, gua or gue, proper names, kin terms, tak, and kita (p.23). It is
very distinct from English which only has finite amount of pronouns to refer oneself and
others (Flannery, 2010, p.1). The use of each variant is never fixed among Indonesian people
6
aku and saya which are used differently” (p.2). Thus, this research is only focused on
personal pronoun saya and aku as self-references.
Hence, there are some elements that require the terms sayaand aku used differently in
daily life. According to Djenar (2007), the use of the pronouns saya and aku as the typical
terms in Indonesian is influenced by formality, neutrality, and intimacy. In term of formality,
saya is used in student-teacher relationship as supported by Dewi (2009), “the relationship
between students and their teachers should be included in a formal relationship as teachers
are the people whose position and status are higher than those of the students” (p.2). This
means that social status plays a role in the use of the terms saya and aku to show respect as it
is found in Saragih (2012) that “with the addressee, the speaker will avoid to refer to himself
with saya or sa “1SG” when he socially outranks the addressee” (p.51). The term saya also
sounds more neutral than aku because it can be used in both formal and informal context as
believed by Flannery (2010) whereas aku is used for a more intimate relationship as defined
in KBBI.
In spite of the traditional standard use of saya and aku, recent finding showed that
there is a shift in the use of saya and aku (Dewi, 2009). Dewi mentions that „every language
can change from time to time” (2009, p.3), and therefore saya and aku use is interchangeable
nowadays. Saya which is formally used to older or higher-status persons changes into the
term aku which is normally used in informal and intimate contexts. The phenomenon of
language shift is written in Afful (2007):
Through various interactions, students make and remake their own social
worlds, utilizing various verbal behaviours, including address terms; but they are also
themselves made and remade by them in the process, thus evidencing a sort of
7 Politeness Theory in Relation to Address Terms
In a broader context, Ethelb (2015) modestly sees politeness to value others and
behave appropriately in front of others in daily communication (p.28). Brown and Levinson
(1987) believe the idea of politeness which is regarded as positive politeness and negative
politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987) in Kitamura (2000) explain:
„Positive politeness‟ is expressed by satisfying „positive face‟ in two ways: 1)
by indicating similarities amongst interactants; or 2) by expressing an appreciation of
the interlocutor‟s self-image. „Negative politeness‟ can also be expressed in two ways:
1) by saving the interlocutor‟s „face‟ (either „negative‟ or „positive‟) by mitigating
face threatening acts (hereafter FTAs), such as advice-giving and disapproval; or 2)
by satisfying „negative face‟ by indicating respect for the addressee‟s right not to be
imposed on. (p.1)
In other words, “politeness theory investigates the linguistic behaviour participants in
communications use to express themselves and strategies they adopt to achieve their
conversational goals” (Ethelb, 2015, p.28). This means that politeness can influence the way
people address themselves in front of others to convey social meanings.
In a further discussion, Ethelb (2015) reveals that “most discussions of address terms
go under the umbrella of politeness” (p.27). The concept of politeness by Brown and
Levinson (1987) relates to the selection of address terms as Wood and Kroger (1991) state
that “address forms are an integral part of polite language use and therefore they figure
prominently in several of the strategies described by politeness theory (P. Brown & Levinson,
1987)” (p.145). With similar belief, Dewi (2007) claims that variant of choices in a language
is strongly connected to politeness whereas Moghaddam et.al (2013) insists that the use of
8
address terms are “the most direct means through which either positive or negative politeness
are generally expressed” (p.60). Moghaddam et.al (2013) also assert that personal pronouns
(me, I, they) are considered as negative politeness address terms (p.62). Accordingly, this
paper uses politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) which is closely related to how
address terms are used through code selection.
Results of Previous Studies
Several studies have explored the different use of address terms in different
languages. For instance, Mogi (2002) did a research about some kinds of address forms in
Japanese. The purpose of the research is to list Japanese address forms and see how they are
used in daily life. The study found that addressing Japanese people requires linguistics and
social knowledge, including politeness and psychological factors (apathy, intimacy, and
respect). Furthermore, one crucial factor influencing the selection of proper address terms is
the relationship between interlocutors.
In a more specific concern of self-reference, Saragih (2012) studied Papuan Malay
speakers address people using person reference (person markers (pronouns), common nouns
and proper nouns). Thus, it aims at identifying the practical use of person reference or person
marker in Papuan Malay through Facebook. By accumulating and examining data from
Facebook, the study found that the natural use of Papuan Malay person references is
influenced by power and politeness issue. Results of Saragih‟s study showed that a speaker
who has a higher social status than an addressee will avoid using first-person references (saya
or sa). Instead, the speaker will use kin terms (kaka, bapa, etc) to show his/her authority and
also being polite to the addressee. Moreover, those issue found in Saragih‟s as well as
9
politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987) to explain influential factors for Indonesian
self-reference (aku and saya) use in this research.
Other researchers, such as Djenar (2007), Dewi (2009), Flannery (2010), and
Rahardjono (2016), also conducted studies about first-person reference used in Indonesian.
Flannery (2010) conducted a comparative study of person reference in English and
Indonesian language and proposed a typological distinction between open and closed systems
of self-reference and addressee-reference. He collected data from forty years of Kompas
newspaper (1965 to 2005) and other official media channels (the government sanctioned
news station TVRI (Televisi Republik Indonesia)) to investigate Indonesian self-references in
daily communication. Based on his focus group discussion with six people from Jakarta,
Flannery found that “the use of saya was common in nearly all contexts where they choose a
first person pronoun, with aku having overtly intimate (i.e. “romantic” or “poetic”)
overtones” (p.12). Furthermore, Flannery‟s study has given clear distinction between
Indonesian language and English. With limited set of pronouns, English has a close system
self-reference while Indonesian has an open systems of self-reference. This will further
explain the difference between Indonesian person references and other foreign languages‟.
Djenar (2007) and Dewi (2008) also conducted similar studies about the terms aku
and saya previously. Djenar‟s research discussed variation in the use of Indonesian self
-referring terms (pronouns and proper names). The results from investigating celebrities‟
speech or conversation showed that the choice or variant of self-reference pronoun is not a
static matter and that a certain choice of pronouns is considered as a self-categorization. In
another context, Dewi‟s study was about students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions towards the shift
of aku and saya in elementary and junior high school in Jakarta. It was intended to examine
the use of aku and saya among children and teenagers from the lower class and middle/upper
10
In teachers‟ point of view, the students know the knowledge of how to use self-references
appropriately but they do not really practice it in school. It was shown from the percentage of
students practicing the appropriate use of aku and saya which is lower than the percentage
those who only know the theory. The reason for students‟ inconsistency on the theory and
appropriate use of aku and saya was the influence of television programs. The teachers
agreed that students imitated the speakers on television programs they had watched.
Basically, Djenar and Dewi‟s studies are important to the issue of self-reference in this
research. Djenar (2007) provides good reference to variations of Indonesian person reference
whereas Dewi (2008) shows language shift in the use of aku and saya among children and
teenagers.
Another related research was done by Rahardjono‟s (2016). Her latest research
studied English Department students‟ attitudes toward the use of aku and saya to lecturers as
well as the influential factors (relationship, habit, setting, and age difference) through
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. In Rahardjono (2016), it was found that the
majority of 2012 batch of English Department students still use saya while others use both
aku and saya to address themselves in front of their lecturers. However, one important thing
has not been discussed in Rahardjono (2016), which is the negotiation between interlocutors
of using the terms aku and saya which can be seen in the process of code selection. As
mentioned in Djenar (2007), “self-reference is a dynamic process which involves constant
negotiation in interaction” (p.24). The negotiation happens during the shift between aku and
saya needs to be taken into account since it is a way of the interlocutors to comfortably
connect to each other (Holmes, 2013, p.285). As a result, “the seeming inconsistency in a
speaker‟s choices of self-reference highlights both the flexibility of self-reference and the
11
METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
The present qualitative study attempted to answer:
(1) What first-person references do MAN students use in referring themselves as saya and/or
aku toward teachers?
(2) What are the factors influencing MAN students‟ selection of the terms saya and/or aku
when communicating with their teachers?
Setting and Context of the Study
This study is part of an umbrella research project ”High School Students‟ Use of Saya
and Aku in Salatiga” led by Dr. E.T. Murtisari (Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas
Kristen Satya Wacana). It sought to investigate Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) Salatiga
students‟ practices in selecting the terms saya and aku to their teachers. It was, then,
necessary to know the students‟ selection of saya and/or aku in order to know their tendency
of using first-person references. Furthermore, factors of the code selection as well as shift
negotiation in the students‟ use of saya and aku were also investigated since politeness issue
might also influence them.
Method
This study used qualitative-descriptive method to investigate the students‟ practices in
selecting the terms saya and aku to MAN teachers and describe them. By using this method,
the researcher could examine the factors influencing the students‟ code selection.
This study also used questionnaires to know the students‟ tendency of first-person
references, and then stimulated response cards to gain deeper data from the selections.
12
or aku exclusively when communicating with teachers and (b) students who used either saya
or aku based on the situation(s) when communicating with teachers.
Participants and Data Collection
The participants in this research were 120 senior high school students (grade 11) of
Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) Salatiga. They were taken from Science, Social, Language,
and Religion education class. The second-year students were selected because they already
got sufficient experiences cognitively in dealing with first-person reference addressing terms
toward their teachers. They also expressed the most natural behaviors of senior high school
students. Thus, the participants were selected using purposive random sampling in clusters
(questionnaires) and criterion-based sampling (stimulated response cards).
The data collection of this study was conducted in eight steps as follow:
1. Piloting the questionnaire to 5 participants in order to confirm its validity.
2. Making an appointment with English and Indonesian language teachers who teach
11th-grade students of MAN Salatiga to distribute the questionnaires in the
classrooms.
3. Making 11th-grade students of MAN Salatiga fill in the questionnaires.
4. Analyzing the data using Excel.
5. Piloting the stimulated response cards to 3 participants in order to confirm its validity.
6. Playing stimulated response cards with 10 students from either saya or aku category
to explore the data from their questionnaires. (10 students were seen enough to
represent the category of students who used either saya or aku depending on the
situations)
7. Analyzing the data using Excel.
13 Data Analysis
The researcher used a categorical or content analysis after obtaining the data from
questionnaires and stimulated response cards. In the first layer, the researcher decided the
themes based on participants‟ responses of the questionnaires. In the second layer, the
researcher confirmed the data from questionnaires using the students‟ responses of stimulated
response cards. In the end, the data from both instruments were combined and analyzed
qualitatively according to the themes. The results of this study were used to describe MAN
students‟ practices in selecting the terms saya and aku to their teachers.
Research Instruments
To gather the data, this research used two research instruments which were developed
by this study‟s umbrella research team; questionnaire and stimulated response card adapting
Holmes‟ (2013) theory of code selection. The questionnaires (Appendix 1) were modified
from Rahardjono (2016). They were designed to know the students‟ selection in order to find
their tendency toward the use of saya and aku for MAN teachers. By using questionnaires,
data in a survey study can be explained with reasons since questionnaire items are designed
to gain participants‟ opinions (Griffee, 2012, p.66).
The questionnaire was arranged in 4 parts: A, B, C and D. The first part was a
closed-ended question to determine which students used saya or aku exclusively, or either aku or
saya depending on the situations. The second and third parts were open-ended questions
which were designed for knowing students‟ reasons in choosing to use saya and aku
exclusively. Lastly, the fourth part consisted of 8 items of closed-ended and open-ended
questions designed for those who chose either saya or aku to MAN teachers. There was also a
table to indicate the factors influencing the students‟ code selection, and a question to identify
students‟ initial perception (opinion) toward politeness in using the terms saya and aku to
14
The stimulated response cards (Appendix 2) consisted of 16 cards of different
situations with improvised factors of code selection. The factors were teacher‟s age, teacher‟s
structural position, student-teacher relationship, topic, teacher‟s personality, and context of
the conversation. Those factors were chosen because they are the most common factors in
influencing the code selection, and this study was still a preliminary study which could not
discuss the data too specific. Each card required the students to answer saya or aku based on
the factors which influence their selection the most. In specific, situations 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14,
15, and 16 represented age factor. Situation 1 to situation 8 represented social status factor.
Student-teacher relationship and personality factors were represented through situations 1, 3,
5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 while topic and situation factors were represented through situations 1, 2, 5,
6, 9, 10, 13, 14. Hence, this instrument was assembled to know MAN students‟ real practices
in selecting first-person reference saya and aku. The factors and shift negotiation behind the
15
Saya Aku Either saya or aku, depending
on the situation(s) Chart 1
RQ 1: What first-person references do MAN students use in referring themselves as saya and/or aku toward teachers?
Number of respondents: 120 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section discusses (1) students‟ selection of using first-person references and (2)
factors influencing students‟ selection of using saya and aku exclusively, and either saya or
aku depending on the situations when communicating with their teachers in MAN Salatiga.
The students‟ opinion toward politeness in using first-person reference addressing terms are
also discussed.
The categories used in this discussion are (1) MAN students who used saya or aku
exclusively when communicating with teachers and (2) MAN students who either use saya or
aku, depending on the situations, when communicating with teachers.
A. MAN Students’ Selection of First-Person References When Communicating with
Teachers
Chart 1 visualizes the data from multiple-choice question of Part A (questionnaire),
„How do you address yourself when communicating with teachers? Do you use saya or
16
communicating with teachers. From 120 respondents, 83% of them exclusively used saya,
2% of them exclusively used aku, and 15% of them used either saya or aku depending on the
situation(s) to address themselves in front of their teachers. The selections of few students
who used aku and some students who used either saya or aku are interesting because students
from religion-based school should have always used saya as their practice to value the
teacher‟s status role. This is supported by the traditional Islamic belief that teachers are seen
as an honorable social role; “Islam has given respectable place to a teacher in society” (Khan,
2014, p.92). Therefore, the more polite form of first-person reference addressing term saya as
believed by Dewi (2009) is more preferable when communicating with teachers.
1. MAN Students Who Used Saya or Aku Exclusively toward Teachers
The numbers of students who used saya exclusively were 99 students while the
numbers of students who used aku exclusively were only 2 students out of 120 participants.
2. MAN Students Who Used Either Saya or Aku Depending on the Situations toward
Teachers
The numbers of students who used either saya or aku depending on the situations
17
B. Factors Influencing MAN Students’ Selection of First-Person References When
Communicating with Teachers
In order to answer RQ 2: What are the factors influencing MAN students’ selection of
the terms saya and/or aku when communicating with their teachers?, this section discusses
the factors influencing the students‟ selection of using saya or aku exclusively, and either
saya or aku depending on the situations.
1. Factors of MAN Students’ Selection in Using Saya or Aku Exclusively toward
Teachers
1a. Factors of MAN Students’ Selection of Using Saya Exclusively toward Teachers
Chart 2 represents the question of Part B (questionnaire), „What is your reason for
always using saya when communicating with teachers?‟. The question was open-ended,
and therefore it required explanations from the students. 86
Factors for Always Using Saya When Communicating with Teachers
18
The result represented in Chart 2 demonstrates that 83% of the total respondents
considered the factors of „politeness‟, „formality‟, „linguistic appropriateness‟, „respect‟,
„teacher‟s age‟, „habit‟, „Javanese Influence‟, and „maintaining student‟s good image‟
when deciding to use saya toward their teachers. Among the factors, „politeness‟ was the
most important factor influencing the students‟ selection. The highest number of responses
(86 responses) indicates that the majority of the students perceived saya as the more polite
form of first-person reference rather than aku. Some students seemed to see „respect‟ (29
responses) was almost as important as „teacher‟s age‟ (28 responses), and both of them
were seen as the more important aspects than „formality‟ (11 responses) as one prescribed
condition for using saya (Djenar, 2007). The slightly different number of responses
between „respect‟ and „teacher‟s age‟ might be caused by the close relationship between
those two factors. For instance, based on the respondents‟ explanations, the students
always used saya to respect their teachers who are older than them. Some students also
regarded „habit‟ (13 responses) of using saya in their environments (family and school) as
other significant factor.
„Maintaining student‟s good image‟ and „Javanese influence‟ were interesting to
express politeness. „Maintaining student‟s good image‟ (3 responses) shows that small
number of students wanted to create good impression about oneself, such as good
personality, in front of their teachers by using saya. This is related to Brown and
Levinson‟s (1987) theory of positive face which they define as an act that desires an
approval from someone else (Jaworski and Coupland, 1999, p.312). „Javanese Influence‟
factor (3 responses) represents small number of students who were more inclined to use
kula or kawula as first-person references in high-variety Javanese (Krama Alus). This
19
appropriateness‟ (2 responses), few students also believed that saya is the prescribed term
for first-person reference toward their teachers.
In addition, the rest of the students mentioned „interlocutor‟ (11 responses) which
constitutes teacher‟s social status and role, and „student‟s comfort‟ (7 responses) as the
factors influencing their selection of using saya exclusively.
1b. Factors of MAN Students’ Selection of Using Aku Exclusively toward Teachers
Only 2% of the total respondents chose to use aku exclusively as their first-person
reference when communicating with teachers. Chart 3 represents the question of Part C,
„What is your reason for always using aku when communicating with teachers?‟. Similar
with Part B, the question in this part was open-ended which required explanations from the
students.
According to Chart 3, the factors influencing the students‟ selection for always
using aku toward teachers were not many compared to the previous data. There were only
„politeness‟, „linguistic appropriateness‟, and „habit‟. All of the factors seemed to be
equally important for the students, considering the same numbers of response (1 response).
1 1 1
Factos for Always Using Aku When Communicating with Teachers
20
On one hand, it is common that the student‟s habit of spontaneously using aku led her to
use the term toward teachers. On the other hand, it is against the normal that the data
report aku as the more polite and appropriate term rather than saya. Moreover, it is
interesting knowing that one respondent who chose aku as their selection was aware that it
is impolite to use aku when communicating with teachers at school; “I know that it is
actually impolite to use aku for teachers”. This signifies that there is a possibility that the
student‟s initial preference (attitude) and practices in using address terms do not work
hand in hand.
2. Factors of MAN Students’ Selection in Using Either Saya or Aku, Depending on the
Situations, toward Teachers
2a. Factors of Students’ Preference, Frequency, and View of Polite Form in Using
First-Person References
This section discusses the factors of students‟ preference, frequency, and view of
polite form to give a general picture of the students‟ practice in using either saya or aku,
depending on the situations, when communicating with their teachers
100%
Chart 4.1
In general, which first-person reference do you like more when communicating with teachers?
Saya
21 100%
Chart 4.3
Which first-person reference do you think is polite when communicating with teachers?
Saya
Number of respondents: 19
15% of the total respondents chose to use either saya or aku when communicating
with teachers. In spite of this, all of the 19 students reported to prefer saya as their general
preference toward the teachers (see Chart 4.1). They also believed the term saya to be the
polite form of first-person reference (see Chart 4.3). Regarding the use of self-references,
the majority of the students who chose either saya or aku depending on the situations used
aku more often than saya. In specific, Chart 4.2 shows that 53% of the respondents (10
students) generally used aku, 31% of them (6 students) generally used either of the terms
equally frequently, and 16% of them (3 students) generally used saya when
communicating with teachers.
16%
53% 31%
Chart 4.2
In general, which first-person reference do you use more often when communicating with teachers?
Saya Aku
Frequently the same
22
Those data imply that MAN students‟ preference of using saya and opinion of
seeing saya as the polite form of first-person reference do not guarantee the students‟
practices for always using saya when communicating with their teachers. The majority of
the students are inconsistent practicing their general preference of using saya toward
teachers since they used aku more often (see Chart 4.2). However, the result of stimulated
response cards (SRCs) confirmed that the majority of the students used saya (124
responses) more often than aku (36 responses) when communicating with their teachers.
This contrast shows that almost all of the students who chose either saya or aku were still
more inclined to use saya after all.
Regarding the students‟ initial selection of choosing either saya or aku, some of
them are consistent. It is because they used saya and aku in different frequency as
presented in Chart 4.2. The same case can also be seen from the SRCs which resulted in
the consistency of the students to use either saya or aku to teachers. Interestingly, there
were 2 respondents (R3 and R8) who were consistent using both of the terms although
they always used saya for all of the questions provided in the cards. It is because some
factors which influencing their selections were not included in the SRCs, such as
student-teacher negotiation, family-like relationship, and jokes topic.
Furthermore, the factors behind the students‟ preference, frequency, and view of
23
Chart 5 reports that „politeness‟ was the most important factor for students who used
either saya or aku, depending on the situations, to choose saya. The majority of the
students referred the term saya as the more polite term to be used for teachers (16
responses). Some of them chose saya because teachers are older than them (8 responses),
and therefore they need to give their teachers a good respect (3 responses). Small number
of the respondents also used saya only in formal situation (2 responses) while few others
used saya because they are accustomed to using it (1 response), maintain good impression
in front of the teachers (1 response), and perceive saya as the prescribed term of
first-Factors for Choosing Sayaas Students' (Who Chose Either Saya or Aku) General Preference When Communicating with Teachers
24 Table 1
Factors of Students’ (Who Chose Either Saya or Aku) General Preferencesin Frequently Using First-Person Reference Addressing Terms
Saya Aku Either saya or aku,
frequently the same
Factor Frequency Factor Frequency Factor Frequency
Politeness 1 Linguistic
Appropriateness 3 Habit 1
Habit 2 Habit 3 Others 8
Others 1 Javanese
Influence 2
Others 2
Table 1illustrates that there were some factors behind MAN Students‟ selections in
practicing self-references. It was their habit which seems to mostly influence the students‟
selections. As reported in the table, „habit‟ factor appeared behind each of the students‟
selections (saya: 2 responses; aku: 3 responses; both, frequently the same: 1 response). For
frequently using aku, some students argued that the language they use toward teachers will
be more casual by using aku (3 responses). Other students even regarded aku as the same
first-person reference addressing terms in Indonesian and low-variety Javanese. This
finding is interesting since the students‟ selection of using aku might be influenced by
Javanese culture. Other responses from the students who exclusively used saya and aku
frequently more often are their comfortable feeling when using the term(s). To which
teachers the students talk to and the setting of the student-teacher conversation were other
25
According to Chart 6, the students‟ opinion of regarding saya as the polite form of
self-reference was mostly influenced by the concept of „politeness‟ itself. The majority of
the students mentioned that it is more polite to use saya (13 responses) while few of them
think that saya is linguistically appropriate (2 responses) to be used when communicating
with teachers. This is linear with Moghaddam et.al (2013) who believe that address terms
is a strategy to apply politeness in spoken and written language. Some students perceived
the way they give respect (10 responses) to teacher(s) whose age is always older (4
responses) than them was also significant besides „politeness‟. Interestingly, there was 1
response stating that saya can build student-teacher good rapport. The respondent assumed
that addressing herself with the polite form of self-reference will make the teachers like
talking with her. This contradicts Brown and Levinson (1987) who believe that negative
politeness address term will make a distance between students and teachers instead. 13
Factors for Choosing Saya as the Polite form of First-Person Reference to Communicate with Teachers
26 2b. Social Setting and Formality Factors
After discovering the students‟ (who used either saya or aku) preference, frequency,
and view of politeness form, it is essential to know the social settings or situations in
which the students select to use saya and/or aku.
Chart 7 describes the situations in which the students usually use either saya or aku,
whether it is in formal situation, informal situation, or even both depending on to which
teacher(s) the student is talking with. The data were gained from students‟ responses of
question item 3 and 5 of Part D, „In which situation do you usually use saya when
communicating with teachers?‟ and „In which situation do you usually use aku when
communicating with teachers?‟. Both questions were closed-ended.
Chart 7 reports that the majority of the students usually used first-person references
in both formal and informal situations, considering the teacher(s) they are talking with.
This implies that the students do not only seem to perceive social setting aspect in
deciding their selection, but also interlocutor aspect. In specific, more students usually
used saya (16 responses) in both situations rather than aku (11 responses). It is interesting 2
Formal Situation Informal Situation Both, depending on to which teacher(s) I am
speaking with
Number of respondents: 19 Chart 7
Situations in Using First-Person References When Communicating with Teachers for Students Who Chose Saya and Aku
27
that only small number of the students used saya in formal situation (2 responses). This
proves that most MAN students whose selection was either saya or aku do not really
consider social setting as an important factor when communicating with their teachers. It
might be caused by „the kinds of teachers‟ that they consider more. Furthermore, there was
1 student who used saya in informal situation. This response is related to Flannery (2010)
who believes that saya sounds more neutral than aku because it can be used in both formal
and informal context.
In relation to social setting, formality factor is used in “assessing the influence of the
social setting or type of interaction on language choice” (Holmes, 2013, p.10). Thus, it
contributes to the students‟ code selection which will be discussed further in the next
28 2c. Participant Factor
In regards to the previous explanation that teachers (the students are talking with)
are considered more than the formality of the situation, this part discusses participant
factor, in this case is teaher‟s type, as the part of formality factor.
Chart 8 represents which kind of teachers that MAN students usually used saya and
aku with at school. The data shown were from students‟ responses of question item 4 and
6 of Part D, „To which kind of teachers do you often use saya with?‟ and „To which kind
of teachers do you often use aku with?‟. Both of the questions were multiple set response 36%
The Teachers Whom MAN Students Usually Use First-Person References with
Saya
29
questions. The students could also add an additional answer that was not included in the
options.
According to Chart 8, the majority of students seemed to use saya based on
teacher‟s age without really took their structural position, personality, and/or relationship
with the students into account. 36% (14 responses) and 23% (9 responses) of the students‟
responses of using saya was for (e) all senior teachers and (j) all young teachers. Some
students considered teacher‟s personality by using saya to (g) young teachers who are
strict. However, it was not as significant as teacher‟s age since it was only worth 10% (4
responses). Other kinds of teachers that the rest of the students added in option k were all
teachers (2 responses), all MAN teachers (1 response), and all teachers teaching in class (1
response). This means that as long as they are teachers, some students will always use
saya to them. In other words, these students are inconsistent with their initial selection
(using either saya or aku depending on the situations).
When communicating with teachers using aku, the majority of the students
considered teacher‟s (friendly) personality as the most important aspect. 32% (9
responses) of the responses voted for (d) senior teachers who are friendly and (i) young
teachers who are friendly. Some students also considered teacher‟s age as other significant
factor to use aku since there were 18% (5 responses) responses for (j) all young teachers.
7% (2 responses) responses belonged to using aku toward (e) all senior teachers. This is
surprising as some students with option (e) do not seem to have a proper pragmatic
competence because their teacher‟s selection does not correspond with the prescribed rules
of first-person references. According to Fraser (2010), “pragmatic competence is the
ability to communicate your intended message with all its nuances in any socio-cultural
30
with the students, which was not included in the options. These students only considered
the topic of conversation (e.g. jokes) when communicating with their teachers.
Based on the data and analysis above, formality factor is influenced by social
distance and status relationship as mentioned in Holmes (2013), “often degrees of
formality are strongly influenced by solidarity and status relationships” (p.10). Therefore,
it can be implied that the students considered formality through the student-teacher
relationship, teacher‟s personality, and teacher‟s structural position, when communicating
with their teachers as the interlocutor or participant within the conversation.
2d. Other Factors
This section discusses the data from questionnaire item 7 of Part D, „What aspects
do you consider in choosing saya or aku when communicating with teachers?‟. Likert
scale was used to investigate 7 factors (teacher‟s age, personality, student-teacher
relationship, teacher‟s structural position, context of the conversation, teacher‟s comfort,
and objective of the conversation) the students tend to consider when choosing saya and/or
aku to their teachers. This is to confirm the factors proposed by Holmes (2013) that the
students who chose either saya or aku considered previously.
Table 2
31
According the data summary from Table 2, „teacher‟s comfort‟ (4.05) and „teacher‟s
structural position‟ (4.00) were the most common factors the majority of the students
considered in selecting saya and aku. Both factors gained the highest means compared to
others. The majority of them also always took „teacher‟s structural position‟ and „teacher‟s
age‟ into account every time they decided first-person references when communicating with
their teachers. 52.63% (10 students) of the total respondents (19 students) always considered
„teacher‟s structural position‟ whereas 42.11% (8 students) of them considered „teacher‟s
age‟. This means that these two factors were significant behind the students‟ selection of
using saya and aku.
Some other students still seemed to consider „teacher‟s age‟, „teacher‟s personality‟,
„student-teacher relationship‟, „context of the conversation‟, and „objective of the
conversation‟, although the means were not as high as the means of „teacher‟s comfort‟ and
„teacher‟s structural position‟. „Teacher‟s personality‟, „teacher‟s comfort‟, „context of the
conversation‟, and „objective of the conversation‟ were regarded quite important by the 3
32
students realizing their highest numbers for scale 4 (often). Moreover, „student-teacher
relationship‟ was considered yet not quite noticed by the students when choosing which
self-references they will use toward teachers.
Moreover, the data of factors considered by the students from questionnaires were
contrastive to the result of the SRCs. The majority of the students who used either saya or
aku practiced their code selection mostly based on „student-teacher relationship‟ and
„teacher‟s personality‟. This means that the students seem to regard those two factors more
important than others. The reason was because saya occured 75 times in situations 1, 3, 5, 7,
9, 11, 13, 15 whose student-teacher relationship is distant and teacher‟s personality is strict.
„Teacher‟s structural position‟ as a principal shown in situations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 was
considered as other significant factor followed by „teacher‟s senior age‟ in situations 1, 2, 3,
4, 13, 14, 15, 16. Lastly, with 63 times occurrence of saya in situations 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13,
14, „topic‟ (asking about a lesson) and „context‟ (in a class) of the conversation were also
measured by the students to practice their selection of first-person reference addressing terms.
Consideriring the factors of teacher‟s structural position (status relationship), student
-teacher relationship (social distance), -teacher‟s age and personality (participant), the students
who chose either saya or aku were practicing politeness when communicating with their
teachers. The way they created distance between students and teachers is actually an attempt
to value the teacher‟s authority, and therefore the results of SRCs confirmed their negative
33
CONCLUSION
This study aims at investigating MAN Salatiga students‟ practices in using
first-person references toward teachers through their selection of aku and/or saya, and factors
influencing their selection(s). Using Holmes‟ (2013) factors of code selection, there are
participants, social setting, function, social distance, status relationship, and formality which
can influence students‟ selection of first-person references.
The students‟ selection and factors of using first-person references were observed
from the findings of the questionnaires. The results showed that the majority of the students
(83%) tend to use saya exclusively (mostly influenced by politeness factor) whereas few of
them (2%) used aku exclusively (influenced by politeness, linguistic appropriateness, and
habit) when communicating with teachers. Some of them (15%) used either saya or aku,
depending on the situation. Based on the students‟ responses from questionnaires and
stimulated response cards (SRCs), the most influential factors of the latter category were
teacher‟s structural position (status relationship), student-teacher relationship (social
distance), teacher‟s age and personality (participant). In addition, SRCs result also showed
that the students‟ (who chose either saya or aku) preference of self-references was still saya
with 124 responses (aku only appeared in 36 responses) and that they employed negative
politeness by creating student-teacher distance.
However, there were some inconsistencies found between students‟ general
preference and practices. There were some students whose attitudes and practices in using
self-reference did not work hand in hand. One student from aku category was aware that saya
is the prescribed first-person reference toward teachers. All students from either saya or aku
category even chose saya as their general preference, but the majority of them used aku
34
few students who selected teachers that do not represent their initial selection. The
inconsistencies may be caused by the difference between the prescribed rules of first-person
reference the students have in mind and the actual communication that they encounter.
In regard to MAN students‟ tendency in using saya as first-person reference when
communicating with their teachers, the majority of the 120 respondents seemed to still adhere
to the traditional Islamic belief (teachers are seen as an honorable social role which the
students need to give them good respect) by Khan (2014). Although there was also a
possibility of language shift as believed by Afful (2007) considering some students who used
either saya or aku depending on the situations, the students were still more inclined to saya.
Moreover, more studies are necessary to see to what extent the shift between saya and aku
occurred.
At last, the results of this study cannot be used to generalize the use of saya and aku
for the whole school since the participants were only grade 11 of MAN students. Further
studies of this topic can expand the scope of this study and investigate more on the students‟
pragmatic competence in influencing the students‟ selection of first-person references toward
teachers. The improvisation of the factors in the questionnaires and SRCs is also essential to
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Never would I finish this thesis without the blessings from Allah SWT. I thank Him
for giving me strength to endure all the pressure during the process of gaining the title of S.Pd
in Faculty of Language and Arts. I am also eternally grateful for having such supportive
parents, Suprapto Wibowo, S.H and Christiana Sri Budi Handayani N, S.Pd, and family who
were never tired to help me through their neverending prayers.
It was an honour for me to have Bu E. Titik Murtisari, S.Pd, M.Trans.Stud, Ph.D as
my supervisor. Thank you for guiding and facilitating me throughout this thesis writing
patiently. I also express my gratitude toward my examiner, Bu Athriyana S. Pattiwael,
M.Hum, who gave me feedback to revise my thesis so that I could finish it on time.
Furthermore, I thank both of them for pushing me to the very limit because of always
believing in my capability.
With all of my heart, I am really grateful for having the opportunity to fight together
with my best friends, Dea Devina Fabrian and Rosyana Diva Lolyta, at the end of my
undergraduate study. Thank you for always strengthening each other and giving me much joy
in the midst of struggle. I am also beyond words to express my sincere appreciation for my
senior high school friends who kept reminding me all the dreams that I lived and telling me
not to give up so easily. Last but not least, thank you for all seniors who were kindly willing
to help me answer my questions related to thesis writing and all of the influential persons in
36
REFERENCES
Afful, J. B. A. (2007). Address forms and variation among university students in Ghana. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 16(2): 179–196. University of the Witwatersrand,
SouthAfrica. Retrieved on September 20th, 2016 from Foreign Language Teaching, 4(1): 23-40. National University of Singapore. Retrieved on September 25th, 2016 from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4sp12007/djenar.pdf
Ethelb, H. (2015). Using address terms in showing politeness with reference to their translation from Arabic into English. International Journal of Comparative Literature & Translation Studies,3(3): 27-37. Australian International Academic Centre,
Australia. Retrieved on February 13th, 2017 from
http://www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJCLTS/article/view/1690/1594
Flannery, G. (2010). Open and closed systems of self-reference and addressee-reference in Indonesian and English: A broad typological distinction. Selected Papers from the 2009 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Retrieved on September 26th, 2016 from http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2009/flannery.pdf
Fraser, B. (2010). Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Retrieved on April 27th, 2017
from
http://www.bu.edu/sed/files/2010/10/2010-Pragmatic-Competence-The-Case-of-Hedging.pdf
Griffee, D. (2012). An Introduction to Second Language Research Methods: Design and Data. University of California: TESL-EJ Publications.
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th Edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35-71. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. Retrieved on February 18th, 2017
fromhttp://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/2611pdf/Hymes-Models.pdf
Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (1999). The Discourse Reader, 2nd Edition. London and New York: Routledge. Retrieved on February 5th, 2017 from
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:64421/component/escidoc:2225570 /Brown&SCL-Politeness1999.pdf
37
Retrieved on February 5th, 2017 from
http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2000/kitamura.pdf
Moghaddam, A. S., Yazdanpanah, L., and Abolhassanizadeh, V. (2013). The analysis of Persian address terms based on the theory of politeness. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics [online], 10(3): 55-71. The Ohio State University. Retrieved on November 10th, 2016 fromhttp://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL24/pdf_doc/04.pdf
Mogi, N. (2002). Japanese ways of addressing people. Investigationes Linguisticae, 8, 14-22.
Retrieved on September 4th, 2015
Rahardjono, V. S. (2016). Students‟ attitude in using first-person reference addressing terms of aku and saya to lecturers. Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.
Ray, M. and Biswas, C. (2011). A study on ethnography of communication: A discourse analysis with Hymes „speaking model‟. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(6): 33-41. The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education. Retrieved on
February 18th, 2017 and Levinson‟s politeness theory. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 3(2): 26-39. Department of English, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab,
Wagner, L. C. (2012). Positive- and Negative-Politeness Strategies: Apologizing in the Speech Community of Cuernavaca, Mexico. University of Louisville. Retrieved on
38
ico&usg=AFQjCNFoTqAau1Vbv7q7PvMIj2XtiwRYCA&sig2=b--uZsyhccsqq15o-jsXXw
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 5th Edition. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved on February 18th, 2017 from
http://home.lu.lv/~pva/Sociolingvistika/1006648_82038_wardhaugh_r_an_introductio n_to_sociolinguistics.pdf
Wood, L.A., and Kroger, R.O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3): 145-168. SAGE Social Science Collections. Retrieved
on February 13th, 2017 from
39 APPENDIX A
KUESIONER
Penggunaan Kata “Saya” atau “Aku” oleh Siswa/i MAN Salatiga
Saya, Desy Rizki Lukitasari, mahasiswi angkatan 2013 jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (PBI) UKSW Salatiga. Saya membuat kuesioner ini untuk mengetahui sikap siswa-siswi MAN Salatiga dalam memilih kata sapaan Aku atau Saya ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru. Saya akan sangat menghargai partisipasi Anda jika bersedia menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan dalam kuesioner ini. Jawablah dengan sejujur-jujurnya karena tidak akan mempengaruhi nilai pelajaran Anda. Tidak ada jawaban benar atau salah. Terima kasih banyak atas partisipasi Anda.
Silakan beri tanda centang (√) pada jawaban yang Anda pilih.
BAGIAN A
1. Ketika Anda berbicara dengan guru, bagaimana Anda menyebut diri Anda di depan mereka? Apakah Anda menggunakan saya atau aku?
(a) ____ Saya (b) ____ Aku
(c) ____ Keduanya, tergantung situasi
Jika Anda memilih opsi (a) Saya, silakan langsung menjawab BAGIAN B.
Jika Anda memilih opsi (b) Aku, silakan langsung menjawab BAGIAN C.
Jika Anda memilih opsi (c) Keduanya, tegantung situasi, silakan langsung menjawab BAGIAN D.
BAGIAN B (Jika Anda selalu menggunakan saya)
1. Apakah alasan Anda selalu menggunakan saya ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru? Jelaskan.
BAGIAN C (Jika Anda selalu menggunakan aku)
