A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
SRI MINDA
Registration Number: 8126111040
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
ABSTRAK
Minda, Sri. Makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagar pada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Tesis: Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Medan 2014.
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk meneliti makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagarpada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif. Sumber data penelitian adalah masyarakat Siladang di desa Aek Banir, Panyabungan. Data diperolah dengan menggunakan observasi dan wawancara. Analisis penelitian tersebut dilaksanakan dengan menerapkan pendekatan Bogdan & Biklen. Penemuan dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ada dua tipe makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas pada ujaran laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang. Makna pragmatik tersebut adalah modal tag dan affective tag. Penemuan lainnya adalah terdapat lima makna pragmatik dari klausa berpagar yaitu a) makna perlindungan, b) sebagai makna kepastian, c) sebagai makna ketidakpastian, d) sebagai makna kesopanan dan e) sebagai makna pembatasan. Laki-laki suku Siladang cenderung mengujarkan modal tag sebagai tanda ketidakpastian, sedangkan perempuan cenderung mengujarkan affective tag sebagai tanda kesopanan. Salah satu makna pragmatik dari klausa berpagar pada ujaran perempuan suku Siladangnese adalah makna kesopanan, tetapi makna tersebut tidak terdapat pada ujaran laki-laki suku Siladang. Total makna pragmatik dari pertanyaan penegas dan klausa berpagar pada ujaran bahasa laki-laki dan perempuan suku Siladang berbeda, tetapi perbedaan tersebut tidak signifikan.
Program. Postgraduate School, State University of Medan 2014.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful whom she would like to express her sincere gratitude, Allah the almighty who has given her blessing health, strength and patience in the process of completing this thesis in the title the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female Siladangnese as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Magister Humaniora at the Postgraduate of English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan.
This thesis would not also have been possible brought into existence without the help of a great many people. At first, in particular, the writer would like to express her gratitude to Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S., and Dr. T. Thyrhaya Zein, M.A., her first and second adviser for their so generous assistance, guidance, advice, and precious time they spent on supervising and guiding this thesis.
Secondly, the writer would also like to express her gratitude to the head of English Applied Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., her secretary, Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Bang Farid who have assisted her in the process of administration requirement during the process of her study in the postgraduate program. Special thanks to the all lecturers of the English Applied Linguistics Program, State University of Medan who have given their valuable knowledge to her in their lectures.
Thanks are due to her proposal reviewers and examiners, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., P. hD., Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., for their appropriate and helpful commentaries and constructive suggestions.
She would also very much like to express her gratitude to the all informants in desa aek Banir, Panyabungan who have generously given their time and chance, and supplied her with information for analysis of this study, particularly Darwis the village leader of Desa Aek Banir, Pnyabungan and his wife Irma Holila Pasasribu who have provided their time and chance in supporting this thesis.
Last but not least, on a personal level, the writer would like dedicate her love and sincerest gratitude to her parents, Ahmad Sofian Nasution and Ida Norma Dalimunthe, brothers and sisters for their sincere and most reliable comfort, and above all, their love and support. Sujatmiko Ismail Pohan, the one who always loves, supports, suggests comments, prays, and accompanies her in every condition, also deserves her thanks.
i
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 11
2.1Theoretical Framework ... 11
2.2Pragmatic Feature ... 11
2.2.1 Tag Question ... 15
2.2.2 Hedge ... 18
2.3 Gender in Interaction ... 22
2.4 The Characteristics of Male and Female Utterances ... 23
2.4.1 The Differences of Male and Female Language ... 25
2.5Reason for Different Use of Pragmatic Features ... 28
2.6Context of Male and Female Language……….. 31
2.7Siladangnese Society ... 33
2.8 Related Studies ... 34
ii
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION ... 45
4.1The Data and Data Analysis ... 45
4.1.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question ... 45
4.1.1.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Male Siladangnese ... 45
4.1.1.2 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Female Siladangnese ... . 49
4.1.1.3 The Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Male Siladangnese ... 53
4.1.1.4 The Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Female Siladangnese ... 56
4.1.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female Of Siladangnese……...……..………... 59
4.1.2.1 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese……...……..………... 59
4.1.2.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese……...………..………... 62
iii
4.2Findings ... 69
4.3Discussion ... 70
4.3.1 The Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese ... . 70
4.3.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnese ... . 75
4.3.3 The Context of Male and Female of Siladangnese Utter the Pragmatic Features of Tag Question and Hedge ... . 77
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 79
5.1Conclusions ... 79
5.2Suggestions ... 81
References ... 82
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.1.1.1 Tag Question in the Utterances of Male
Siladangnes………...………...……..46
Table 4.1.1.2 Tag Question in the Utterances of Female
Siladangnes………...………...……..49
Table 4.1.1.3 Hedge in the Utterances of Male
Siladangnes………...………...……..53
Table 4.1.1.4 Hedge in the Utterances of Female
Siladangnes………...………...……..56
Table 4.1.2.1 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Tag Question
in the Utterances of Male and Female of Siladangnes..…..…..60
Table 4.1.2.2 The Differences of Pragmatic Features of Hedge
v
LIST OF FIGURE
Page
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 The utterances of male and Female of Siladangnese…...……….86
Appendix 2 The Identity of the Informants ………....100
Appendix 3 The Interview Sheet…………...103
Appendix 4 The Photographs of Desa Aek Banir,
1 1.1 The Background of the Study
Indonesia is a multiethnic country which has a lot of cultural society. One of
them is Siladangnese society. Geographically, Siladang people are living in the valley
of Tor Sihite. It is located about 17 Km from Panyabungan, the capital of Mandailing
Natal. This language becomes potential phenomenon in linguistics study to be
researched. As it was informed by Multamia Lauder in Kompas (2008), about 736 of
746 vernaculars in Indonesia are endangered and one of them is Siladang language.
Communication is the means by which ideas and information are spread from
person to person. People use communication to express feelings, emotions, opinions
and values, to learn and teach, and to improve their status. Communication is
therefore vital to human interaction whether between parents and children, bosses and
employees or even husband and wife. The diversity and characteristics of those
involved in any interaction can thus affect communication. Taking account of any
diversity in interaction rather than assuming uniformity is important to achieving
effective communication.
In general, society has constructed the belief that men and women behave
differently to images of masculinity and femininity. As Spender (1992: 135) states
that:
Male and masculine are two different concepts: the first term refers to biology and the other refers to identity. Being male is not complete without the existence of masculinity. Even some features of masculinity are quickly recognized as being a biological part of being male.
2 According to Herring (1992: 135):
Masculinity or femininity is not solely biological but it is constructed by the society and the surroundings we live in. Masculinity is demonstrated and expressed in various ways such as voice, physical appearance and behavior. It is also strongly associated with a deep voice, tall and wide shoulders, and a muscular body; sometimes it is portrayed in the posture and gait which require a bigger space than women.
In general, men and women are known to use language differently, but
sometimes they may unintentionally exhibit feminine or masculine language
characteristics respectively when they talk. Although men and women belong to the
same speech community, they may use different pragmatic feature. The pragmatic
feature s used by women and men contrast to some extent in all speech communities.
For example, Holmes (1993: 58) mentions the Amazon Indians’ language as an
extreme example, where the language used by a child’s mother is different from that
used by her father and each tribe is distinguished by a different language. In this
community, males and females speak different languages.
A study about Siladang language has been conducted by Sinar and Syarfina
(2010) which focus on the Siladang language prosody which is interrelated with
gender. The data were collected by recording the utterances in three different types
such as declarative, imperative and interrogative. The findings of the research shows
that women’s tone in speaking is higher than the man’s tone but not really significant.
So, it indicates that there is not a great difference in female and male Siladangnese in
their utterances.
From among these researchers, Lakoff (1975) proposed theories on the
existence of women’s language. Her book ‘Language and Woman’s Place’ has served
as a basis for much research on the subject. She mentions ten features for women’s
3
2. Tag questions, e.g. she is very nice, isn’t she?
3. Rising intonation on declaratives, e.g. it’s really good.
4. Empty adjectives, e.g. divine, charming, cute.
5. Precise color terms, e.g. magenta, acqamarine.
6. Intensifiers such as just and so.
7. Hypercorrect grammar, e.g. consistent use of standard verb forms.
8. Superpolite forms, e.g. indirect requests, euphemisms.
9. Avoidance of strong swear words, e.g. fudge, my goodness.
10. Emphatic stress, e.g. it was a BRILLIANT performance.
Lakoff (1975) stated that male seldom use tag questions and hedge in language.
It often find in females’ language. Moreover, she believes that the use of tag question
in female’s language indicate the uncertainty.
The same research conducted by Deumert and Masinyana (2008) study in
which there is a significant gender based difference in the number of words per SMS
message. Naturally, the data shows that women generally write longer messages. The
participants were asked if gender differences have an effect on the length of SMS.
The female participants state that “female like to elaborate and talk more than men
and we are more expressive”.
Based on the researcher observation in Aek Banir in April 2013, male and
female Siladangnese used tag questions and hedges when they were speaking. The tag
question often found in male utterances. The transcriptions of the utterances both of
4
“Sabulan ma ho dison naso ako tondoi pe au”.
(you have been a year here, but you still don’t know me) PB : “Da Manyabar do ako, iyo?” naiboh, tai tong tolu doson tolu da adu. Naiboh sada, iyo?”
(I don’t know all exactly indeed, but the leader’s own is it.) but, there are three here and the other three are there. Here is one, isn’t it?)
ZR : “Nakutinggalkonpisong da adu anabanyak”. (I had left so many bananas in there).
NH : dicalo angkang ma budak-budak nek pulang sikola’ i so diobanna tong tuson boh. Mangua ho ja?
(You ask the children if they had arrived from school to bring the bananas here. Where are you going?)
ZR : “Oku nak ko pasa, manghabis ma bolanyongku dibagas jem”. “Mang upaulak ma pisou mu, iyo?”
(I want to go to the market, all food restock is going end. Have I returned your knife, haven’t I?)
“Bentak na lupa do au”.
(I doubt that I forgot.)
NH : “Ngape ku poresou, tai madung ma nurangku”. (I haven’t checked it yet, but I think you have.)
From the above conversation, the female’s conversation was longer than the
male’s. In female utterances, it was found tag question and hedge. The first was tag
question, the word iyo in the sentence “Naiboh sada, iyo” and the tag iyo in “Mang
5
something. The second was hedge, the italicized sentence here “
pas dah,pala ahani kapalo desa naiboh, tai tong tolu doson tolu da adu” is a kind of hedge in Siladangnese language.
The researcher also found tag question and hedge in male utterances. A kind of
hedge found in the sentence “lah lupo oku golomu dah, sio do golomu?” The hedge in
a clause form “lah lupo aku golomu dah” used to lessen the impact of the next
utterances. The speaker used this hedge to soften the language. There were two tag
questions found, they were Anapolupo ho, iyo and da Manyabar do ako,iyo.
From the data above, it can be stated that the frequency of pragmatic feature
such as tag question and hedge used by male and female Siladangnese is the same.
There are two tag question found in each male and female language. The hedge also
found both in male and female language. It is not only found in female utterances but
also in male language.
Based on the prior observation, there was a gap between the fact and the
theory. The theory proposed by Lakoff stated that tag question and hedge are rarely
found in male language, whereas the fact it was found that male Siladangnese often
used tag question and hedge in the utterances.
Some studies have reported significant differences in the opposite direction.
In a comparison of 36 female and 50 male managers giving professional criticism in a
role play, it was the men who used significantly more negations and asked more
questions, and the women who used more directives (Mulac, Seibold, & Farris,
2000). However, the study did confirm that men used more words overall, whereas
6
reports is that the different contexts in which the language samples were generated
influenced the size and direction of the gender differences.
Moreover, a number of studies have reported greater female use of tag
questions (McMillan et al.: 1977). He reports that tag questions are often found in
women language than men. He believes that tag question in women language show
the uncertainity. As Mulac & Lundell (1994) have found further evidence that women
use phrases that may communicate relative uncertainty. Uncertainty verb phrases,
especially those combining first-person singular pronouns with perceptual or
cognitive verbs (e.g., “I wonder if”), have been found more often in women’s writing
and utterances. A related interpretation of women’s use of hedge phrases is that
women are more reluctant to force their views on another person.
Consistently with this idea, Lakoff claimed that women were more likely than
men in the same situation to use extra-polite forms (e.g., “Would you mind…”), a
claim that was supported by subsequent empirical work (McMillan et al.: 1977).
Gender differences have also been examined by studying the actual words people use.
Mirroring phrase-level findings of tentativeness in female language by (Palomares
and Lee: 2009) state that women have been found to use more intensive adverbs,
more conjunctions such as but, and more modal auxiliary verbs such as could that place question marks of some kind over a statement. While men have been found to
swear more, use longer words, use more articles, and use more references to location.
Men’s language as put by Lakoff (1975: 105) is assertive, adult, and direct,
while women’s language is immature, hyper-formal or hyper-polite and non-assertive.
She believes that the use of tag questions by women is the sign of uncertainty. She
asserts that women are more likely to use empty adjectives such as ‘divine’,
7
forms than men use. She explains that these characteristics of ‘women’s language’ are
a result of linguistic subordination: A woman must learn to speak ‘women’s language’
to avoid being criticized as unfeminine by society. As a result, women appear to lack
authority, seriousness, conviction and confidence in their conversation.
Gender differences in communication may pose problems in interpersonal
interactions leading to intolerance and disappointment. These frustrations also occur in
daily communication. Thus, investigating of pragmatic features in language by men
and women is important. The expectation is if the society has understood about the
difference language between men and women, it will help them to avoid
communication confusion or misunderstanding between genders.
Based on the observation and the finding of Sinar and Syarfina (2010) study,
the researcher sees that male and female of Siladangnese seems not different in the use
of tag question and hedge. The theory proposed by Lakoff (1975) stated that tag
question and hedge are often found in female language, but the fact found in Aek
Banir, it was found that the frequency of tag question and hedge are the same in male
and female of siladangnese utterances. Therefore, the researcher wants to examine the
use of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese.
This study can be used to enhance the awareness among Siladangnese people to be
more appreciative with their language. It is regarded that a better understanding of
gender differences will provide exposure to Siladangnese language and enable
non-Siladangnese to communicate effectively with locals. Moreover, stated in UUD 1945,
chapter XII and article 32; point 21 that the government respects and keeps ethnic
8
pragmatic features of tag question and hedge used in the utterances of male and
female of Siladangnese.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the researcher conducted a study about
gender differences in the use of tag question and hedge among the Siladangnese
people. The following questions were forwarded as the research problems:
1. What are pragmatic features of tag question and hedge found in the
utterances of male and female of Siladangnese?
2. How are the differences of pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in
the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese?
3. In what context do male and female of Siladangnese utter more the
pragmatic features of tag question and hedge?
1.3The Scope of the Study
The scope of this study was limited into the pragmatic features particularly tag
question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. The
utterances were uttered by the native speaker of Siladangnese. They live in Aek
Banir, Panyabungan, Mandailing Natal, North Sumatera.
There were three aspects which observed in this study. The first one was the
pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances of male and female of
9 female of Siladangnese.
From ten features of female language proposed by Lakoff, the researcher select
two pragmatic features namely tag question and hedge as the basis of analysis.
1.4The Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study was to find out the answer of the research
problems. To be more specific the objectives of the study were:
1) to find out the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the utterances
of male and female of Siladangnese
2) to describe the differences of pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in
the utterances of male and female of Siladangnese.
3) to find the context of uttering more the pragmatic features of Tag question
and Hedge of male and female of Siladangnese.
1.5The Significance of the Study
A study which is designed to cover some intended result should have the
significances.
A. Theoretically
1. The result of the study is considered to provide valuable understanding and
to enrich the theories of gender and language in linguistic study.
2. The result of the study can be used as reference for those who want to
10 B. Practically
The result of this study is expected to contribute faithful information about
gender and language for students, teachers or lecturers, researchers and
Siladangnese people.
1. Firstly, for the students, so they can enrich their knowledge about
gender and language.
2. Secondly, for the teachers and lecturers, so they can use it to support
the teaching and learning materials related to the gender and language.
3. Thirdly, the result of the study can be useful for researcher to gain a
deep insight especially in gender and language in Siladangnese society.
4. Fourthly, the result of this study can be useful for Siladangnese people
79 5.1 Conclusions
The study concerned on the pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the
utterances of male and female of Siladangnese. Based on the analysis, the conclusions
are drawn as follows:
1. The Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by male Siladangnese is modal
tag and the Pragmatic features of tag question uttered by female Siladangnese
are modal tag and affective tag. It is also found that there are four pragmatic
features of hedge found in the utterances of male Siladangnese namely hedge
as a means of protection, as a means of certainty, as a means of uncertainty and
as a means of limitation. Then, there are five pragmatic features of hedge in the
utterances of female Siladangnese which are found in this study. They are a)
hedge as a means of protection, b) hedge as a means of certainty, c) hedge as a
means of uncertainty, d) hedge as a means of politeness, and e) hedge as a
means of limitation.
2. The differences of pragmatic features of tag question in utterances of male and
female Siladangnese is male Siladangnese tend to utter modal tag as a means of
uncertainty, while female Siladangnese utter more affective tag as a means of
politeness. Then, the differences of pragmatic features of hedge in the
utterances of male and female of Siladangnese is the function of hedging
expression “Nakupikike (I think)” and “Okoh boto (You Know)”.
The difference is that female Siladangnese utter the pragmatic features of
hedge especially the expression “Nakupikike (I think)” function as a means of
80
expression “Nakupikike (I think)” as a means of certainty . Another difference
is that the use of hedging expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” in the utterances of male Siladangnese as a means of certainty, but in the utterances
of female Siladangnese the expression “Okoh boto (You Know)” function as a means of positive politeness.
3. The context of male and female of Siladangnes utters more the pragmatic
features of tag question and hedge is when both of sexes are in mix sex talk.
Female Siladangnese utters more the pragmatic features of tag question and
hedge when talk to male addressee. While male Siladangnese utters more
pragmatic features of tag question and hedge in the context when he is talking to
82
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunz, U., & Campbell, S. 2003. Accommodating politeness indicators in personal electronic mail messages. Presented at Association of Internet Researchers’ 3rd Annual Conference. Maastricht: The Netherlands.
Cameron, D. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, J. 1988. Women, men and language. A sociolinguistic account of gender
differences in language. 3rd edition. London, UK: Longman.
DeFrancisco, V. 1997. A Comparison of Gender Equality in Countries with
Gendered, Natural Gender, and Genderless Languages. A Thesis. Clayton:
Monash University Press.
Denzim, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Reseacrh. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Deumert, A. & Masinyana, S.O. 2008. Mobile language choices. The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS): Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. A Journal of Language and Gender. Pp 107-131.
Dubois, B. L., & Crouch, I. 1975. The question of tag question in women’s speech:
They don’t really use more of them, do they? A Journal ofLanguage in
Society. pp 38-54.
Finch, Geoffrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. London: Wiley-Blackwell Fishman, P. 1980. Interaction: The work women do. Language, Gender and Society.
In Eckert 2003. Cambridge University Press.
Glass, Lilian. 1992. He Says She Says: Closing the Communication Gap Between the Sexes. New York: GP. Putnam and Sons
Halliday, M.A.K. 1989. Text as semantic choice in social contexts. New York: Continuum.
Herring, S. C. 1992. Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. A Thesis. Leeds Metropolitan University.
83
Holmes, J. 1993. Sociolinguistics in Society. An introduction to sociolinguistics.
London, UK: Longman.
Hopper, P. 1992. Linguistics. Glossary of Linguistics Terms. New York: SIL International.
Hubermann, M. & Miles, M. B. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Method. Beverly Hills: Sage Production.
Ismail, R. 2004. Pragmatik bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Bentang Pustaka.
Johnson, Cathryn, Stephanie J. Funk, and Jody Clay-Warner. 1998. Organizational Contexts and Conversation Patterns. Journal of Social Psychology Quarterly. pp 98-127
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and woman’s place.New York: Harper Colophon Books.
Mahsun. 2005. Metode Penelitian Bahasa: Tahapan Strategis, Metode and Techniknya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Manurung, dkk. 1978. Beberapa Data Bahasa Siladang: Suatu Penelitian (Khusus Fonologi dan Morfologi). Medan: Fakultas Sastra Universitas Sumatra Utara.
Markkanen, Raija and Schröder, Hartmut. 1992. Hedging and its linguistic
realization in English, German and Finnish philosophical texts. A Journal of Language and Social Psychology. pp 102-146.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. 1977.Women’s language: Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles,
Journal of Language & Social Psychology. Pp 39-47.
Mercer, N. 2000. Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together. London: Routledge.
Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. USA: Blackwell.
Morgan, D. L. 1988. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. California: Sage Publication.
Mulac, A.,&Lundell, T. L. 1994. Effects of gender-linked language differences in
adults’ written discourse: Multivariate tests of language effects. Journal of
Language & Communication. pp. 78-101.
Mulac, A., Seibold, D. R., & Farris, J. L. 2000. Female and male managers’ and professionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects.
84
Palomares, N. A. & Lee, Eun Ju. 2009. Virtual gender Identity: The Linguistics Assimilation to Gendered Avatars in Computer-Mediated Communication.
Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 35- 66.
Paul. R. 2001. English Language Arts Standards. Dallas: Michigan State University Press.
Preisler, Bent. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. Journal of Language & Social Psychology. pp 233-271.
Romaine, S. 2000. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. The 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinar, T. S. & Syarfina, T. 2010. Prosodi bahasa Siladang sumatera Utara.Presented at Masyarakat Linguistik Indonesia, 17th Annual Conference. Jakarta, Indonesia.
University of North Sumatera Press.
Spender, D. 1985. Man made language. 2nd edition. London: Routledge & Kegan Pail. Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
---. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Trask, R. L. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed., ed. London: Routledge.
Uchida, A. 1992. When difference is dominance: A critique of the anti-power-based cultural approach to gender differences. Journal of Language in Society. pp 44-56.
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia. 2010. Jakarta: Penerbit Kartika.
Wilamová. S. 2005. Expressing Politeness in English Fictional Discourse. Ostrava: Oystraysk Univerzita.
Available from: https://is.muni.cz/th/106163/pedf_b/text_prace.pdf (accessed on 2nd March 2014).
Zimmerman, D. & C. West. 1982. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley. 1987. Language and
