i
PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN FIRST-PERSON ADDRESSING TERMS TO TEACHERS
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
Dea Devina Fabrian (112013011)
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS
UNIVERSITAS KRISTEN SATYA WACANA
SALATIGA
ii
iii
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
Private School Student‟s Selection
of Indonesian First-Person Addressing
Terms to Teachers
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
Dea Devina Fabrian 112013011
Approved by:
Supervisor Examiner
v
vi
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (UKSW) Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana academic community, I verify that:
Name : Dea Devina Fabrian
Student ID Number : 112013011
Study Program : English Language Teaching
Faculty : Language and Arts
Kind of Work : Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide UKSW with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN FIRST-PERSON ADDRESSING TERMS TO TEACHERS
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, UKSW maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga Date : May 2017 Verified by signee,
Dea Devina Fabrian Approved by:
Supervisor Examiner
vii
Code Selection in Terms of Address ... 3
The formal and informal account of first-person references ... 4
Address terms and politeness ... 5
Results from Previous Studies ... 6
THE STUDY ... 8
Setting and Context of the Study ... 8
Method ... 8
Participants and Data Collection ... 9
Data Analysis ... 10
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 11
1) Students‟ selection of self-reference ... 11
2) Students‟ practice of the exclusive use of either saya or aku... 12
a) Students who use saya exclusively ... 12
b) Students who use aku exclusively ... 13
3) Students‟ practice in usage shifting between aku and saya ... 15
4) A report of students‟ Stimulated Response Card test results ... 20
Findings in Views of Brown‟s Theory of Politeness ... 22
CONCLUSION... 23
Acknowledgment ... 26
REFERENCES ... 27
1
PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN FIRST-PERSON ADDRESSING TERMS TO TEACHERS
Dea Devina Fabrian Abstract
This descriptive qualitative study examines students‟ selection in the use of Indonesian self-referring terms of aku and saya to teachers. The personal pronoun
saya is traditionally prescribed to be the standard polite form to refer to oneself when communicating with teachers to show respect. In recent years, however, it has been observed that some students have started to use the more informal version aku,
which may reflect a shifting paradigm of politeness. This study therefore aims to further investigate students‟ practice in using the personal pronouns. As a case in point, this research involved 120 private senior high school students in their second year in SMA Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga. The results show that the tendency to shift from formal to informal self-reference is strongly evident in students‟ reported practice of the personal pronouns. It was also suggested that there is a shift from negative politeness to positive politeness in students‟ communication with their teachers.
Keywords: address terms, Indonesian self-reference, politeness theory, pre-service teacher, intercultural competence
INTRODUCTION
Stivers, Enfield and Levinson (2007) stated that “reference to persons is a fundamental phenomenon at the intersection between language and social structure” (p.2). While people are building social bonds with others through communication, they are subconsciously using certain reference for the persons they are talking to as well as when referring to themselves. The reference addressing terms are governed and influenced by the following components: the participants, setting, topic, and the function of the interaction (Holmes, 2013).
2
onto while using reference terms: the age gap between the speaker and addressee, their social status difference, the settings where the interaction takes place, etc. Indonesian people uniquely have two variations of first-person reference: informal aku, and formal saya which are usually used according to some values mentioned.
While saya is traditionally prescribed as the appropriate form to use by a student when communicating with teachers, two small-scaled studies indicate that this practice might be shifting. They found that saya is rarely used and found in Indonesian education setting, in which, education is one example of formal settings where students will find themselves conversing with teachers: older people as well as people with higher social status. A large number of students use aku as the low variety instead of saya as the high variety when addressing themselves in front of the lecturers. Basically, there should be a polite and respectful relationship between students and teachers as teachers are older people whose social status is higher than the students. Therefore, the formal selection of high variety saya is more appropriately used rather than aku to show politeness.
The present research aims to answer the research questions: „What personal pronouns do students use to refer themselves when communicating to their teachers?‟, and also answer the second research question: „What are the factors which account forprivate school student‟s selection of first-person reference to their teachers?‟
In conclusion, this research intends to seek an answer about private school student‟s attitude in selecting the first-person expressions of aku and saya, within the politeness theory framework and based on the formal or standard use of Indonesian personal pronoun, i.e. saya
3
Salatiga, Indonesia. By conducting the study, the researcher expects that the results obtained could help the language education system in Indonesia to review its language education planning: whether Indonesian values have successfully be integrated and maintained. Also, the study hopefully could raisestudents‟ sociolinguistic awareness, especially while selecting Indonesian first person reference, since one‟s selection of self-reference represents his/ her self-conception in the society (Djenar, 2007, p. 23; Dewi, 2007).
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Terms of Address
Parkinson (1985, p. 1) as cited in Qin (2008) describes that terms of address is defined loosely as words used from one person to refer to the addressee in a speech event. It can be extremely important conveyors of social information. Esmae‟li (2011) briefly defined terms of address as “words or expressions used to indicate certain relations between people, or to
show the difference in identity, position and social status” (p. 183). Similarly, Wardhaugh (2006) also suggests that terms of address shows a clear indicator of “a power differential”
between interlocutors (p. 269). They establish the relative power and distance of speaker and hearer (Wood and Kroger, 1991 in Wardhaugh, 2006). In conclusion, terms of address are words that a speaker and his interlocutor used in an interaction and they indirectly indicate the relationships between the speakers.
In this paper, “terms of address” will only refer to aku and saya as the first person reference in Indonesian language, and self-reference will be the main concern to be discussed in the study.
Code Selection in Terms of Address
4
and Bonvillain (2013) argue that there are four social dimensions influencing the selection of code, i.e. social distance, status scale between speakers, formality, and two functional status of the interaction. Holmes (2013) described that the closer the solidarity between participants, the more informal the language and code selection used. However, Djenar in 2017 proposed the negotiation between interlocutors as one of the factors behind “the seeming inconsistency in a speaker‟s choices of self-reference…” (p.38). She explained that “self-reference is a dynamic process which involves constant negotiation in interaction” (p.24). The choice of
self-reference might change according to non-stop negotiation, i.e. purpose of the interaction, the intimacy of the interaction – built by the speakers during the discussion.
We cannot deny that globalization process has contributed to the use of code selection around the world. By the increasing number of bilingual speaker, Holmes (2013) found that there is a tendency to move from one code (language, dialect, or style) to another during speech for a number of reasons or what he called as code switching. He further mentioned some reasons for code switching, such as to signal solidarity, to reflect one's ethnic identity, to show off, to converge or reduce social distance with the hearer, to diverge or increase social distance, etc.
The formal and informal account of first-person references
Unlike English language system which only has limited first-person reference terms, Indonesia language system is “an open pronoun system” (Thomason & Everett, 2005, p. 307). Indonesian has a wide variety of choices when it comes to self-reference: saya, aku, the
hokkien-derived pronoun gue, tak, kita, as well as personal names and kin terms (Djenar, 2007, p. 23). The study will only focus on the first-person expressions of aku and saya.
5
have an intimate relationship, when they share the same status in the society, or when the hearer has a lower status. Meanwhile, the expression saya as the high variety is used when the participants have formal relationship, or when the hearer has a higher status (Holmes, 2013).
Djenar (2007) and Dewi (2008) clearly said that the relationship between students and teachers are considered to be formal as there is a clear gap between their age and status. Dewi in 2008 assumed that “students would use saya when speaking to their teachers” (p. 4). Saya
is believed to be more polite rather than aku because the pronoun saya evokes the sense of respect, politeness and non-offensiveness in front of the interlocutor. Dewi‟s assumption is in line with Mintz‟ (1994) claim that formal variety is somehow seen as the neutral one; and usually neutral things are non-offensive (in Djenar, 2007). According to his claim, informal pronouns are not neutral; a speaker who uses informal pronouns might inadvertently offend the interlocutor. On the other hand, the use of saya as the formal pronouns is considered neutral in any situation since formal words are believed to be neutral. Therefore, according to the belief, personal pronoun saya should be used in the formal interaction between students and teachers in Indonesia.
Address terms and politeness
The term politeness is defined by Holmes in 2013 as the consideration of social factors (social distance in terms of solidarity or formality), social status, social values of a community, etc. in communication. A person is considered linguistically polite if one speaks appropriately and considers his relationship with his interlocutor. On the other hand, he will be considered impolite/ rude if he chooses inappropriate linguistic choice.
6
study. To Brown and Levinson, addressing terms “function as an indicator of interlocutors‟ social status as well as their social distance, showing their emotions to the other side and a means of saving one's face” (Akindele, 2008, in Moghaddam et al., 2013, p. 126). They further mentioned that addressing terms can be used “to show either positive or negative
politeness” (p.58). In relation to this, Holmes explained that positive politeness is “solidarity oriented,” and by contrast, negative politeness “pays people respect and avoids intruding on them” (p.285). Positive politeness is represented through close and intimate addressing terms, while negative politeness is represented through address form of honorifics and titles. (Brown & Levinson, 1987)
Results from Previous Studies
A number of scholars had tried to investigate the use of different terms of address in several languages. One prominent study was conducted in 2002 by Mogi. He investigated different kinds of addressing forms used by Japanese in their daily life. The study revealed that in Japan, one‟s addressing terms can reflect his/her position in the society. In choosing one‟s addressing terms, Japanese is more influenced by social factors rather than grammatical rules. Linguistic politeness and the relationship between interlocutors are two social factors that strongly influence the selection of addressing terms. He also found out psychological factors, i.e. apathy, intimacy, and respect as another determinant in the selection of addressing terms process.
Similar to the current study, Djenar (2007), Dewi (2008), Flannery (2010), and Rahardjono (2016) also investigated Indonesian‟s first-person reference.
7
with aku having overtly intimate (i.e. “romantic” or “poetic”) overtones” (p.12). He concluded that “saya is appropriate (i.e. pragmatically unmarked) in both non-formal and formal usage, making its use somewhat neutral in any situation” (2010, p.13).
Djenar‟s study (2007) entitled „Self-reference and Its Variation in Indonesia‟ investigated the various self-reference in Indonesian language. It is found from the study that the selection of reference is a dynamic matter, and is sometimes considered as self-categorization. Dewi‟s study (2008) „Students‟ and teachers‟ perception toward the use of
aku and saya in theory and practice‟ aims to investigate the usage shift of aku and saya
among high school students from different economic background in Jakarta. The data was obtained from questionnaires and suggested that there is a usage shift from saya to aku. It was found that students are believed to know the appropriate self-reference, but they do not put the knowledge into practice. Dewi assumed some factors behind students‟ inconsistency between the theory and use, “…in this research the factors assumed are family background and media (TV program)” (p.33).Similar to Dewi‟s study (2008), Rahardjono‟s thesis (2016) „Students‟ Attitude in Using First-Person Reference Addressing Terms of Aku and Saya to Lecturers‟ found that there is a decreasing use of saya by students when conversing with teachers. In Rahardjono‟s study, she found and mentioned some influential factors for selecting first-person reference. The study revealed that the majority of 2012 batch of English Department students still use saya to address themselves in front of their lecturers. However, Rahardjono‟s study did not address the issue of negotiation process between the two speakers as proposed by Djenar (2007) as one factor of speaker‟s inconsistency in choosing self -reference.
8
perceptions and attitudes of students and teachers of aku and saya usage in communication process. Dewi‟s and Rahardjono‟s studies shared a similar concern to this study: to investigate the tendency to shift first-person addressing terms use from high variety to low variety to the lecturers.
THE STUDY
Setting and Context of the Study
This study is part of an umbrella research project “High School Students‟ Use of Aku
and Saya in Salatiga” led by Dr. E. T. Murtisari (Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas
Kristen Satya Wacana).
The present study was a qualitative study which attempts to answer two research questions: „What personal pronouns do students use to refer to themselves when communicating to their teachers?”, and „What are the factors which account forprivate school student‟s selection of first-person reference to their teachers?‟
Method
This study used descriptive qualitative methodutilizing double-layered instruments: modified questionnaire (Appendix 1) adapted from Rahardjono‟s study (2016) by this study‟s umbrella research team as the first instrumentand stimulated response cards which also developed by the research team (Appendix 2).Questionnaire is utilized as “data in a survey study can be explained with reasons since questionnaire items are designed to gain participants‟ opinions” (Griffee, 2012, p.66). By the use of questionnaire in the survey, the researcher expects opinions from the participants to give reasons why they choose certain reference.
9
Part A contains one closed-ended question. The closed-ended question was arranged to
figure out students‟ initial perception of their first-person reference. Students‟ answers in part A will determine which part they should go to.
Part B consists of both closed-ended and open-ended questions to investigate the exclusive
users of saya as first-person reference.
Part C consists of both closed-ended and open-ended questions to investigate the exclusive
users of aku as first-person reference.
Part D consists of closed-ended, open-ended and likert-scale questions and was designed for
users who use inconsistent first-person reference to teachers.
As for obtaining spontaneous use of self-reference and a clarification, the researcher conducted Stimulated Response Card test after analyzing the questionnaire‟s results. The test consists of 16 different situations. Each situation shows different components and social dimension of linguistic choices as proposed by Holmes in 2013.
Participants and Data Collection
The participants of the study were 120private school multilingual students in grade 11of Satya Wacana Christian Senior High School, Salatiga, Indonesia. The reason to select particular participants was because second-year students were considered as students who have adapted to the school‟s environment as well as teachers. They were assumed to have more experiences and various factors influencing their communication with their lecturers.
10
selected 10 students who use inconsistent first-person reference of aku and saya who are willing to be interviewed in a SRC test by contacting them through all means of communication given in the biodata part.
Data Analysis
The researcher used a categorical or content analysis for the questionnaire. The researcher decided the themes based on the pre-determined categories and data obtained from participants‟ answers in the questionnaires. After the data collection stage, some emerging themes appeared.
The data were first divided and analyzed into some pre-determined categories as follows: (a) students who tend to use aku exclusively when communicating with lecturers, (b) students who tend to use saya exclusively when communicating with lecturers, and (c) students who tend to use both aku and saya when communicating with lecturers. The aforementioned data were acquired from questionnaire results which were explained descriptively. The questionnaire used was a modified questionnaire from Rahardjono‟s
(2016) study.
11 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section will cover 1) Students‟ selection of self-reference, 2) Students‟ exclusive use of either aku orsaya,3) Students‟ practice inusage shifting between aku and saya, and 4) A report of students‟ Stimulated Response Card test results.
1) Students‟ selection of self-reference
Figure 1 above shows that the majority of the participants (65%) responded that they use both aku and saya while communicating with their teacher, followed by 33 students (27%) who reported that they are constantly using saya to teachers. The rest 9 students (8%) reported that they use aku when reffering themselves in front of teachers.
Traditional Indonesia people highly values age, status and one‟s role in society and it is represented in the use of saya as a more formal self-reference. However, most of the respondents reported that they use both saya as the H variety and aku as the L variety to teacher alternately. The high occurrence of inconsistent usage of saya here seemed to indicate that there is a paradigm shift in the traditional use of saya. It also indicates that the influencing factors are getting more complex.
The researcher will first disclose the consistent usage of either saya or aku, followed by the discussion of the usage shifting between the two.
Saya 27%
Aku 8% Both, depending on
situation 65%
FIGURE 1 STUDENT'S SELECTION OF SELF-REFERENCE
12
2) Students‟ practice of the exclusive use of either saya or aku
The consistency in using certain self-reference seemed to be an interesting topic to discuss knowing that there are many factors influencing an interaction. Aside from the negotiation between speakers that might arise in interactions, some students (35%) stated that they are consistently using one reference.
a) Students who use saya exclusively
There are 33 out of 120 participants (27%) who said that they are exclusively using
saya when referring themselves in front of teachers. This might indicate that 33 students of XI grade are aware and realize the formal form of saya and put it into practice. To further answer the second research questions, the researcher reported students‟ reasons for using
saya exclusively in Figure 2.1.
There are some reasons mentioned, such as “saya lebih muda dari guru” (I‟m younger than teachers), “sudah terbiasa dari kecil” (been a habit since I was a kid), “kata „aku‟ tidak sopan untuk guru” (the use of„aku‟ is not polite to teachers), “‟saya‟ terdengar lebih sopan” (‟saya‟ seemed more polite), “untuk menghormati guru” (to respect teachers), etc. Based on
0 5 10 15 20 25
16
8 9 9
23
8
3
13
the various answers to the question “What are your reason(s) for always using „saya‟ while communicating with teachers?” the researcher made 6 (six) categorizations.
As shown in Figure 2.1, most of the respondents regarded politeness as the main reason in choosing self-reference saya. The interesting issue to be discussed is that formality and appropriateness are the least reasons for choosing saya over aku. Whereas, in fact, formality and appropriateness account between saya and aku are very distinct. Saya as the formal reference, while aku as the more informal one.
Interestingly, there are four respondents who mentioned, “…guru adalah orang tua kita di sekolah” (teachers are our parents in school), “…untuk guru yang adalah sumber ilmu” (for teachers are the source of knowledge), and two similar answers. These answers somehow indicated that they value their teachers as having a role in the society. One respondent also mentioned saya as a more universal variety of self-reference. This response is in accordance with the theory proposed by Holmes (2013) and Djenar (2007) that higher variety language is more universal to be used. Another interesting answer is, “di daerah saya, lebih sering menggunakan kata ‟saya‟” (in my hometown,„saya‟ is used more often), which is strongly emphasizes cultural influence as one reason for choosing certain reference.
b) Students who use aku exclusively
There are 9 out of 120 participants who stated that they are consistently using aku
14
While others mentioned some reasons for using aku, such as “supaya lebih akrab” (to be more intimate) (intimacy factor), “lebih nyaman/ enak diucapkan” (more comfortable/ nice to be said) (comfort factor), or “been a habit” (sudah kebiasaan) (habitual factor), there are four respondents who defined aku as a more formal way to refer themselves in front of teachers. They mentioned that, “„aku‟ itu lebih sopan… dengan guru” (‟aku‟ is more polite…to teachers), “kata „saya‟ tidak seharusnya digunakan untuk guru” (the word „saya‟ should not be used to teachers) (politeness factor). Interestingly, these four respondents are inferred that there are some other factors which influence the change of Bahasa Indonesia in Biak, Papua.
One respondent reported that he did not have any reason for not using saya, since he believed that aku and saya shared the same meaning. Holmes in his book (2013) refer to this
0
15
situation as code-mixing. Code mixing happens when “a speaker is mixing up codes
indiscriminately [italics added] or perhaps because of incompetence.”
3) Students‟ practice in usage shifting between aku and saya
This section reported students‟ responses which stated to use both saya and aku.
We will first discuss two of eight questions in the questionnaire. These two questions contain 10 (ten) categories showing different types of teacher with some qualification. The „all senior teachers„ category which only indicates age as the influencing factor only got 10%.
20%
Senior teacher who I do not know well
Senior teacher who is friendly
All senior teachers
Young teacher with high position
Young teacher who is strict
Young teacher who I do not know very well
Young teacher who is friendly
All young teachers
16
Figure 3.2 below is a report of student‟s multianswers to the question „What kinds of teachers do you usually use „aku‟to?‟
Students reported that they mostly use aku to young teachers who are friendly (33%), followed by senior teachers who are friendly. Despite the age gap shared between teacher and student, it seems that students want to have more possibility for sharing intimate relationship with teachers. Meanwhile, „all young teachers‟ category which only indicates age component came in third with 22%.
Some of the students (six students for each „aku‟ and „saya‟) also add in “Others” section, saying that they also consider the situation, “…tergantung situasi” (depends on situation). This means that they do not only think of participants, but also the context of the discussion.
Senior teacher who I do not know well
Senior teacher who is friendly
All senior teachers
Young teacher with high position
Young teacher who is strict
Young teacher who I do not know very well
Young teacher who is friendly
All young teachers
17
From figure above, we can see clearly students‟ use of aku and saya to different kinds of teachers. The blue-colored area in the first three and in the fifth kinds of teachers indicates that the respondents still consider age as one of components influencing their selection. Similarly, the high red-colored area in the tenth category shows how age really influenced their selection.
However, the red peak between the blue peaks indicates the high usage of aku in the fourth category. Even though it is senior teacher, the respondents tends to use aku because the teacher is described as a kind teacher. This seemed to indicate that age factor here is influenced by a greater factor which is teacher‟s personality. Meanwhile, the highest red-colored area in the ninth category shows that both age and teacher‟s personality adds to students‟ preference of informal variety usage. Seeing from the low red-colored area in the sixth category, only a few of them consider social status over age of the teachers they are talking to when referring themselves. Hence, we can conclude that the students do not only consider components of Indonesian values (i.e. age, social status, age) to choose certain
18
reference; they also consider another component (i.e. teacher‟s personality as a part of social distance).
The following table represents students‟ answers regarding the influence of settings in interaction.
Table 3. 1
The situation where students use „saya‟/ „aku‟
Formal setting Informal setting Both, depending on the person I talk to
Saya 27 0 51
Aku 4 29 45
Table 3.1shows that most of the students did not choose certain setting to use particular self-reference. They tend to consider their interlocutor and his/her personality and putting aside settings as the main influencing factor.
The following table represents students‟ responses when asked to scale the influence of each factors given.
Table 3. 2
Scale of each factor
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Total Means
Age 7 8 19 31 13 269 53.8
Personality 7 21 24 26 303 60.6
Relationship 1 2 18 23 34 321 64.2
Social status 4 5 23 27 17 276 55.2
Setting 4 2 23 31 18 291 58.2
Addressee‟
comfort 5 8 23 24 18 276 55.2
19
Based on the findings, the relevance of social distance was clearly evident, and the researcher concluded that students of XI grade tend to consider personality (60.6%) and relationship (64.2) as parts of social distance on top of age, status, settings and purpose as the influencing factor. This result is in accordance with Holmes‟ statement “…degree of
solidarity is what counts most” (2013, p. 288).
Figure 3.4 reports students‟ answers to 3 questions designed to check whether student preference and linguistic knowledge are in line with their practice. The question designed to check student preference is “In general, which one (between aku and saya) do you use to communicate with teachers?” Whereas, the question made to check student linguistic
knowledge/competence is “In general, which one (between aku and saya) is more appropriate to be used when communicating with teachers?” Lastly, to check student perception of their
use of self-reference, they were asked “In general, which one (between aku and saya) do you use often (in communicating with teachers)?”
Figure 3.4 above is a comparison between student‟s preference, real use and knowledge of self-reference. As many as 36 respondents reported that they prefer to use saya
20
there are only 16 respondents who prefer to use aku to teachers. Yet, there is a 100% increase choice of aku when students have to recall their real use. To re-check their linguistic competence (competence), at the end of the questionnaire the researcher asked which reference is more appropriately used for teacher along with the reason. Eighty percent of the respondents who use both aku and saya chose saya as the more appropriate way to address themselves in front of teacher. They even gave a very clear explanation of why saya is more appropriate to be used. Even though they actually realize the formal account of saya proven by undeniable data obtained, they did not put their linguistic competence into practice.
4) A report of students‟ Stimulated Response Card test results
In the test, participants are all required to answer spontaneously after they read the situation. Due to the limited time, they spontaneously using their experience, and the possibility to recall their linguistic knowledge is minimized.The following table report participants‟ (R1-R10) answers for the given situation (1-16).
Table 4. 1
Students‟ answers in SRC Test
No. Factors R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
1 Senior age/ high position/ distant relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S S A S S S S S
2 Senior age/ high position/ close relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S S A S S S S S
3 Senior age/ high position/ distant relationship/ informal topic &setting
S A S S S S S S S S
4 Senior age/ high position/ close relationship/ informal topic &setting
A A A A S A S S A S
5 Young age/ high position/ distant relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S S S S S S S A
6 Young age/ high position/ close relationship/ formal topic &setting
21 7 Young age/ high position/ distant
relationship/ informal topic &setting
A A S S S A S S S A
8 Young age/ high position/ close relationship/ informal topic &setting
S A A S A A A S A A
9 Young age/ low position/ distant relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S S S S S A S A
10 Young age/ low position/ close relationship/ formal topic &setting
A A S A S A S S A A
11 Young age/ low position/ distant relationship/ informal topic &setting
S A S A S A A A S A
12 Young age/ low position/ close relationship/ informal topic &setting
S A A A A A A S A A
13 Senior age/ low position/ distant relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S S S S S S S S
14 Senior age/ low position/ close relationship/ formal topic &setting
S A S A A S S S A S
15 Senior age/ low position/ distant relationship/ informal topic &setting
S A S S S S A S S S
16 Senior age/ low position/ close relationship/ informal topic &setting
A A A A S S A A A S
Most of the participants‟ answers did not have a pattern to the different situation given or what Djenar called as “uncertainty of expression” (2007, p. 34). For instance, R1 explained that purpose of the conversation is the most important component, and that he uses aku for those which are intimate. However, there are some inconsistencies found from his answers in the test. In situation number 8 and 12 where the social distance is minimized and the setting is informal, he used saya. Whereas in situation 7 which has intense social distance, he used
aku. He explained he used aku so that he could get closer to the teacher. When asked about why they chose certain reference, the other participants explained that saya is used when meeting someone for the first time. This is in line with Holmes‟ theory that sometimes people choose different code “when there is a change in situation, such as the arrival of new person
22
that he encounter in communicating with teachers. This might happen when a speaker could not adjust his personal aspiration to other people‟s aspiration; “the random shifts between pronouns suggest that no clear distinction is made between … her [one‟s] personal identity and a shared, social identity” (Djenar, 2007, p. 36).
A small number of respondents have patterns and particular components in choosing self-reference. R3 highly considered social distance and the two functional status of interaction. He explained further that he was raised in Africa and thus he neglected age gap and social status which are highly valued in Indonesia. Nevertheless, R10 clearly take age as the only determiner in choosing self-reference, and said that since she was a child, her parents always remind her to use formal language to older people.
From the SRC results, the researcher found social distance (relationship between teachers and students and teacher‟s personality) as students‟ tendency in choosing self-reference.
Findings in Views of Brown‟s Theory of Politeness
The findings obtained in the current study from both questionnaires and SRC test show that there is a tendency to move from negative politeness to positive politeness in the interaction between teachers and students. Whereas, in Indonesia, where values are highly respected, negative politeness should be applied in teacher-student relationship. It can also be Table 4. 2
A sum up of different components influencing students‟ answers
Components Frequency of using H variety
Age between speakers 55
Social Status 52
Social distance 59
23
inferred that today, instead of showing respect to social distance, students tend to minimize social status between them and teachers. Students want a friendly-equal relationship instead of superior-inferior relationship.
CONCLUSION
This research intends to seek an answer about private school student‟s attitude in selecting the first-person expressions of aku and saya, within the politeness theory framework and based on the formal or standard use of Indonesian personal pronoun, i.e. saya for formal relationship and aku for informal relationship.There were some components considered in this research which might influence students‟ selectionof self-reference as discussed by Holmes (2013). The findings of this study suggest that the majority of the participants have a tendency to refer to themselves using both aku and sayato teachers.
The first finding the researcher finds is 8% of the participants use aku exclusively, 27% use saya exclusively, whereas 65% use both aku and sayato their teachers. These findings were quite intriguing knowing the fact that Indonesia is very rich of traditional cultures and values. The very significant numbers of students who use two varieties is in contrast with the belief that students are expected to usesaya to their lecturers. The first finding revealed that there is a change in Indonesian values among students by referring to their choice of self-reference to teachers.
24
The researcher also found that they cannot consistently use certain reference because they were influenced by many factors. That was why most of the respondents chose the neutral options, such as “depends on the situation”, “depends on the person (I talk to) for
some of the questions. Some of them even did not aware of the different formality between
aku and saya. It was also found that some students use aku for teachers who do not share intimate relationship with them, hoping that they could be more intimate. This finding is on the same side with Holmes‟ claim that different code selection can be used to converge/ reduce social distance (2013).
To explore the case further, the researcher clarified some answers through SRC test and found some intriguing data. Through SRC test, the researcher also investigated students‟ relationship with the teachers by referring to the significant relevancy of social distance from the questionnaire. It is found that most of teachers they have been exposed to are friendly; they even make a negotiation to use aku when talking to them. This leads the students to feel at ease whenever interacting with teachers, and results in neglecting some Indonesian values (age gap, different social status, different role in society) as factors influencing their linguistic choice. These findings are in contrast with Rahadjono‟s study (2016)which found that age difference and relationship are factors that can influence different language choice by the speakers. However, these findings strengthen Holmes‟ claims that today “solidarity dimensions was tended to be given greater weight…tends to wins out” (2013, p. 288).
25
advisable to review the language education system in Indonesia. More studies are necessary to figure out to what extent this paradigm shift has occurred.
26
Acknowledgment
First of all I would like to thank my Savior, Jesus Christ for every blessings and glorious graces that I could finally finish this thesis-writing process. I express my deepest gratitude to my dearest supervisor, Elisabet Titik Murtisari, S.Pd., M.TransStud., Ph.D., who expertly and kindly guiding and supervising me in the process. I would also express my sincerest appreciation to Joseph Ernest Mambu, Ph.D. as my second reader for the time spent and dedication given to examine this thesis.
I would also deliver my gratitude to all good people who surrounds me. Firstly, for my parents and sister for all of their prayers and motivation. I would also extend my gratitude to Yehezkiel Chris Setiawan for his endless understanding during my mood change I undergone in thesis-writing process.
27 REFERENCES
Bonvillain, N. (2003). Language, culture, and communication: the meaning of messages, 4th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.
Dewi. I. (2008). Analyzing the use of aku and saya in the student teachers communication, Linguistik Indonesia. 22 – 34 Th.26.No. Feb.2008. Retrieved on November 18th, 2016 from http://www.linguistik-Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 83-188. Retrieved on December 7th,
2016 from
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._9_Special_Issue_July_2011/20.pdf
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 December 6th, 2016 from http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2009/flannery.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.
Leh, J. M., Grau, M., & Guiseppe, J. A. (2015). Navigating the development of pre-service teachers‟ intercultural competence and understanding of diversity: The benefits of facilitating online intercultural exchange. Journal for Multicultural Education 9(2), 98-110. doi: 10.1108/JME-12-2014-0042
Moghaddam, A.S., Yazdanpanah, L., & Abolhassanizadeh, V. (2013). The analysis of Persian address terms based on the theory of politeness. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10(3), 55-71.
Mogi, N. (2002). Japanese ways of addressing people. Investigationes Linguisticae, 8, 14-22. Retrieved on November 18th, 2016 from
www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~inveling/pdf/norie_mogi_inve8.pdf
Qin, X. (2008). Choices in terms of address: A sociolinguistic study of Chinese and
American English practices. In M. Chan & H. Kang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, 409 -423. Ohio State University. Retrieved on November 14th, 2016 from
28
Rahardjono, V. C. (2016). Students‟ attitude in using first-person reference addressing terms of Aku and Saya to lecturers (bachelor‟s thesis). Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, Indonesia.
Saragih, C.F. (2012).The practical use of person reference in Papuan Malay (doctoral‟s thesis). University Nijmegen, Holland. Retrieved on November 28th, 2016 from http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/518697/thesis_the_practical_use_of_person_refere
nce_in_papuan_malay.docx.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core
Concepts. Retrieved on December 3rd, 2016 from
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global _pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf
Song, S. (2012). Politeness and culture in second language acquisition. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). Person reference in interaction. In N. J. Enfield, & T. Stivers (Eds.) Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (pp. 1-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomason, Sarah, G. & Daniel, L. E. (2005). Pronoun borrowing. In Charles Chang, Michael J. Houser, Yuni Kim, David Mortensen, Mischa Park-Doob & MaziarToosarvandani (eds.), Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 301-315. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.
Wardaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics, 5th Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Retrieved on November 16th, 2016 from
29 APPENDIX 1
KUESIONER
Penggunaan Kata “Saya” atau “Aku” oleh Siswa/I SMA di Salatiga
Saya, Dea Devina Fabrian, mahasiswi angkatan 2013 jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris (PBI) UKSW Salatiga. Saya membuat kuesioner ini untuk mengetahui sikap (attitude) siswa-siswi SMA di 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
30 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‟)
31
BAGIAN D (Hanya jika Anda menggunakan „aku‟ dan „saya‟ kepada guru)
1. Secara umum, mana yang Anda lebih suka untuk Anda pakai ketika berkomunikasi kepada guru?
(a) ____ Saya (b) ____ Aku
(c) ____ Tidak ada yang lebih saya sukai Alasan:
2. Secara umum, mana yang lebih sering Anda gunakan di antara „aku‟ dan „saya‟? (a) ____ Saya
(b) ____ Aku
(c) ____ Sama seringnya Alasan:
3. Dalam situasi seperti apa Anda biasa menggunakan „saya‟ ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru? (Pilih salah satu jawaban)
(a) ____ Situasi formal (contoh: di dalam kelas, saat mengerjakan tugas, dll.)
(b) ____ Situasi tidak formal (contoh: berbicara dengan guru saat bertemu di kantin atau tempat lain di luar jam sekolah)
(c) ____ Keduanya, tergantung kepada guru yang berbicara dengan saya
4. Kepada guru yang seperti apa Anda biasa (sering) menggunakan „saya‟? (Anda bisa memilih lebih dari satu jawaban)
(a) ____ Guru senior yang punya jabatan struktural (contoh: kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dll.)
(b) ____ Guru senior yang terkenal tegas
(c) ____ Guru senior yang saya tidak terlalu kenal (d) ____ Guru senior yang terkenal ramah
(e) ____ Semua guru senior
(f) ____ Guru muda yang punya jabatan struktural (contoh: kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dll.)
(g) ____ Guru muda yang terkenal tegas
(h) ____ Guru muda yang saya tidak terlalu kenal (i) ____ Guru muda yang terkenal ramah
32 (k) Lainnya (sebutkan):
5. Dalam situasi seperti apa Anda biasa menggunakan „aku‟ ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru? (Pilih salah satu jawaban)
(a) ____ Situasi formal (contoh: di dalam kelas, saat mengerjakan tugas, dll.)
(b) ____ Situasi tidak formal (contoh: berbicara dengan guru saat bertemu di kantin atau tempat lain di luar jam sekolah)
(c) ____ Keduanya, tergantung kepada guru yang berbicara dengan saya
6. Kepada guru yang seperti apa Anda biasa (sering) menggunakan „aku‟? (Anda bisa memilih lebih dari satu jawaban)
(a) ____ Guru senior yang punya jabatan struktural (contoh: kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dll.)
(b) ____ Guru senior yang terkenal tegas
(c) ____ Guru senior yang saya tidak terlalu kenal (d) ____ Guru senior yang terkenal ramah
(e) ____ Semua guru senior
(f) ____ Guru muda yang punya jabatan struktural (contoh: kepala sekolah, wakil kepala sekolah, dll.)
(g) ____ Guru muda yang terkenal tegas
(h) ____ Guru muda yang saya tidak terlalu kenal (i) ____ Guru muda yang terkenal ramah
(j) ____ Semua guru muda (k) Lainnya (sebutkan):
7. Hal-hal apa yang Anda pertimbangkan ketika memilih „saya‟ atau „aku‟ ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru? (Centang jawaban yang Anda pilih)
33
8. Mana yang menurut Anda sopan untuk digunakan ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru?
(Pilih salah satu jawaban)
(a) ____ Aku (b) ____ Saya (c) ____ Keduanya Jelaskan pilihan Anda.
4
Jabatan guru saya (guru biasa, kepala sekolah, guru kesiswaan, dll.)
5 Konteks percakapan (tempat dan waktu)
6
Kenyamanan guru (saat „saya‟ atau „aku‟ digunakan)
7
34 Data Diri Responden
Umur:
Jenis kelamin: Laki-laki / Perempuan (lingkari salah satu)
Kota asal: Provinsi:
Suku:
Bahasa ibu (bahasa pertama, yang dipakai sejak kecil):
Bahasa yang dipakai di rumah: _
Bahasa yang paling sering dipakai:_______________________ Kelas / Jurusan: /
Tolong lengkapi informasi di bawah ini: Nama:
No. Tlp / HP (yang aktif): Akun Sosial Media (yang aktif):
35 APPENDIX 2
STIMULATED RESPONSE CARDS
Terima kasih telah bersedia berpartisipasi kembali dalam penelitian saya. Dalam sesi ini saya ingin meminta kesediaan Anda untuk menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan sebagai kelanjutan dari kuesioner "Penggunaan „Aku‟ dan „Saya‟" yang sebelumnya sudah Anda isi. Anda akan diberikan beberapa situasi dan kondisi sesuai dengan pengalaman yang Anda alami di sekolah ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru. Anda hanya perlu memilih kata sapaan mana yang akan Anda gunakan, „aku‟atau „saya‟, dalam setiap situasi yang Anda baca pada setiap kartu. Jawablah dengan sejujur-jujurnya karena tidak akan mempengaruhi nilai Anda. Tidak ada jawaban benar atau salah. Terima kasih.
Dea Devina Fabrian.
1. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru senior (55 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
2. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru senior (55 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
3. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru senior (55 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, „aku‟atau „saya‟?
36
sekolah. Kemudian guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut mengajak bicara Andauntuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
5. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru muda (25 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
6. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru muda (25 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
7. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru muda (25 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
8. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru muda (25 tahun) yang menjabat sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru/Kepala Sekolah tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
37
10. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru muda (25 tahun) yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
11. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru muda (25 tahun) yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
12. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru muda (25 tahun) yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
13. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru senior (55 tahun) yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
14. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru senior (55 tahun) yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Ketika Anda ingin bertanya tentang bagian yang tidak jelas dari topik pelajaran (yang sedang dijelaskan) kepada guru tersebut, mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
15. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru senior (55 tahun) yang berkepribadian tegas dan tidak begitu dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
38
