PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN …

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

2017

ii

PERNYATAAN TIDAK PLAGIAT

iii

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN AKSES

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

E. Titik Murtisari, S.Pd., M.TransStud., Ph.D. Joseph Ernest Mambu, Ph.D.

v

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

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:



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

E. Titik Murtisari, S.Pd., M.TransStud., Ph.D. Joseph Ernest Mambu, Ph.D.

vii

TABLEOF CONTENTS

INSIDE COVER .................................................................................................................................... i

PERNYATAAN TIDAK PLAGIAT .................................................................................................... ii

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN AKSES ......................................................................................... iii

APPROVAL PAGE ............................................................................................................................. iv

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... v

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT ......................................................................................................... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... vi

Abstract................................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................................... 3

Terms of Address ............................................................................................................................. 3

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

APPENDIX 1 ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDIX 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 35

1



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).

Indonesian people use different ways and variations to show the social relationship

between the speaker and the addressee. There are some values that Indonesian people hold

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

for formal relationship and aku for informal relationship. Therefore, the researcher will

investigate the issue of the formal and informal code usage by private school students when

addressing themselves in front of teachers in Satya Wacana Christian Senior High School,

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

For decades, the issue of different addressing terms or what Wardaugh (2006) called

as „code‟ has become one highlight in sociolinguistics. Two sociolinguists, Holmes (2013)

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.

In Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia – The Indonesian Dictionary (http://kbbi.web.id/),

it is defined that aku is used for “ragam akrab” –a close relation i.e. the two participants

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.

A study from Moghaddam, Yazdanpanah, and Abolhassanizadeh (2013) proposed

Brown and Levinson‟s theory of politeness (1987) as one of the frameworks used in their

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.

Flannery‟s study compared the person reference used in English and Indonesian

language and proposed the open and closed system of self-reference as one distinction. To

enrich the findings, he did a focus group discussion of six Jakarta people and reported that

“the use of saya was common in nearly all contexts where they choose a first person pronoun,

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 self-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.

Djenar‟s research focused on figuring out the variation of self-reference in Indonesia

whereas Dewi‟s and Rahardjono‟s research concern was to investigate the different

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.

To ease the data analysis process, the questionnaire was divided into four parts: Part

A, B, C, and D.

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.

The researcher spread questionnaires to 140 students of 11 graders in Satya Wacana

Christian Senior High School to get a valid data and to avoid obscurity in obtaining the data.

The questionnaires used were already piloted to 5 senior high school students to check the

questions‟ validity and clarity. To obtain the data, the researcher asked the participants to fill

in the questionnaire after getting permission from the school and scheduled to spread the

questionnaire in the classrooms. After analyzing the answers, the researcher purposively

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.

To probe deeper into the data obtained, Stimulated Response Card (SRC) were made

to re-check some selected respondents‟ attitude towards the use of aku and saya in

specifically designed SRC containing certain setting, situation, interlocutor, purpose of the

interaction. The researcher utilized purposive sampling to select respondents for SRC test.

Some of the criteria are 1) students who fill in the questionnaire, 2) students which give

intriguing data in the questionnaire, and 3) students who are willingly to join the SRC test.

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

Saya Aku Both, depending on situation

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

F I G U RE 2. 1 REASONS FOR U SI NG SAYA

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

when communicating to their teachers. This seemed to show that there are numbers of

students who are still not aware of the informal account of 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

all from Biak, Papua. In an interview conducted for clarification by the researcher, they

explained that in Biak, the use of aku is more appropriate, i.e. used for teacher, formal

situation; while saya is used for same-age friend. Another thing which intrigued the

researcher is their statement; they stated both in the questionnaire and during the interview

that they learnt and used Bahasa Indonesia as a means of daily communication. It can be

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

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Habits Speaker's comfortIntimacy marker Politeness Age Others

5

3

2

3

2 2

FIGURE 2.2 REASONS FOR USING AKU

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

purpose of designing the question in such a way is to identify whether age is the most

influencing factor in students‟ selection.

Figure 3.1 below reported student‟s multianswers for the question „What kinds of

teachers do you usually use “saya” to?‟

As shown in the figure, senior teachers in higher social status is the most type of

teacher whom students would use saya to. Followed by both 15% response for senior

teachers who are strict and have no intimate relationship with the students. Meanwhile, the

„all senior teachers„ category which only indicates age as the influencing factor only got 10%.

20%

15%

15%

2%

10%

9%

10%

9%

1%

6%

3%

FIGURE 3.1 THE USE OF SAYA

Senior teacher with high position

Senior teacher who is strict

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

Others

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.

0% 1% 2%

23%

6%

2%

2%

4%

32%

22%

6%

FIGURE 3.2 THE USE OF AKU

Senior teacher with high position

Senior teacher who is strict

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

Others

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 self-

Seniorteacher

with highposition

Seniorteacherwho isstrict

Seniorteacherwho I donot know

well

Seniorteacherwho is

friendly

All seniorteachers

Youngteacher

with highposition

Youngteacherwho isstrict

Youngteacherwho I donot knowvery well

Youngteacherwho is

friendly

All youngteachers

Saya 40 31 31 3 21 18 20 19 1 12

Aku 1 3 28 7 2 2 5 40 27

40 31 31

3

21 18 20 19

1

12

0 1 3

28

7 2 2 5

40

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FIGURE 3.3 COMPARING THE USE OF SAYA AND AKU

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

Purpose 3 7 25 30 13 277 55.4

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

to teacher. However, only 13 respondents stated that they frequently use saya. In contrast,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Preference

Frequency

Knowledge

43

16

63

19

38

0

16

24

15

FIGURE 3.4 SS ATTITUDES IN USING AKU AND SAYA

Neutral Aku 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


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


A A A A S A S S A S

5 Young age/ high position/ distant


S A S S S S S S S A

6 Young age/ high position/ close


S A S A S S S S A A

21

7 Young age/ high position/ distant


A A S S S A S S S A

8 Young age/ high position/ close


S A A S A A A S A A

9 Young age/ low position/ distant


S A S S S S S A S A

10 Young age/ low position/ close


A A S A S A S S A A

11 Young age/ low position/ distant


S A S A S A A A S A

12 Young age/ low position/ close


S A A A A A A S A A

13 Senior age/ low position/ distant


S A S S S S S S S S

14 Senior age/ low position/ close


S A S A A S S S A S

15 Senior age/ low position/ distant


S A S S S S A S S S

16 Senior age/ low position/ close


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

[italics added]” (p. 35). The other participants explained that aku is used for teacher who is

not close hoping that the use of aku could reduce the distance and the very formal situation

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

Two functional status of interaction 56

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.

Another result is that the participants who use both self-reference are actually aware

the formal account of saya. Yet, most of them did not put it into practice which leads to the

inconsistency between preference, knowledge, and real usage of self-reference. The

inconsistency was caused by some arguments stating that the use of aku evokes a sense of

intimacy and comfort. Some participants also claimed that since they use aku to their friends,

they were carried away. As a result, they used aku reflexively 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).

From the findings, especially from the high number of students who use both

pronouns, it is certain that the process of language shift in in the interaction between teachers-

students is evident. The data shows that students were not considering the significance of

settings or might even neglect their linguistic competence. This, however, might change the

values that represent Indonesian identity. Therefore, from the result of this study, it is

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.

This study however, has some limitations. The first limitation is concerning the

participants‟ inconsistency. Since the participants were private senior high school students

with limited linguistic competence, different results might have been acquired if the

participants were from different kind of school with different background. Second, since the

study mostly reveals data obtained from questionnaire, the data cannot portrays the whole

picture of first-person reference‟ real usage.

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.

Next, I would like to thank all friends who continuously giving me supports during

the thesis-writing process, Desy Rizki Lukitasari, Ratna Windhi Arsari, Rosyana Diva Lolyta,

Gefanny Intan Ingtyas, Maria Grandy Chrisya, Fassio Theokharis. Also, my friends in

Swamaratu which motivated me to graduate as soon as I could.

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-

indonesia.org/images/files/TheAnalysisofUsingAkudanSaya.pdf

Dewi, I. (2009). “Saya mau, bu!” or “aku mau, bu!”? from the teachers and students‟ point of

view. Jurnal Lingua Cultura, 3(1), 1-10. Retrieved on November 18th, 2016 from

http://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/lingua/article/view/326

Djenar, D. (2007). Self-reference and its variation in Indonesian. Electronic Journal of

Foreign Language Teaching, 4(1), 23-40. Retrieved on October 6th

, 2016 from

http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4sp12007/djenar.pdf

Esmael‟i, S. (2011). Terms of address usage: the case of Iranian spouses. International

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.


, 2016 from

https://naccl.osu.edu/sites/naccl.osu.edu/files/22_qin-x.pdf

http://www.linguistik-indonesia.org/images/files/TheAnalysisofUsingAkudanSaya.pdf

http://www.linguistik-indonesia.org/images/files/TheAnalysisofUsingAkudanSaya.pdf

http://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/lingua/article/view/326

http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4sp12007/djenar.pdf

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._9_Special_Issue_July_2011/20.pdf

http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2009/flannery.pdf

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~inveling/pdf/norie_mogi_inve8.pdf

https://naccl.osu.edu/sites/naccl.osu.edu/files/22_qin-x.pdf

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.


, 2016 from

www.faculty.mu.edu.sa/download.php?fid=83585

http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/518697/thesis_the_practical_use_of_person_reference_in_papuan_malay.docx

http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/518697/thesis_the_practical_use_of_person_reference_in_papuan_malay.docx

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad/openhouse/interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf

http://www.faculty.mu.edu.sa/download.php?fid=83585

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 BAGIAN D.

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‟)

1. Apakah alasan Anda selalu menggunakan „aku‟ ketika berkomunikasi dengan guru?

Jelaskan.

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

(j) ____ Semua guru muda

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)

No Faktor yang

mempengaruhi

Tidak

pernah Jarang

Kadang-

kadang Sering Selalu

1 Usia guru saya

2 Kepribadian guru saya

(tegas, ramah, lucu, dll.)

3

Hubungan saya dengan

guru saya (akrab, renggang,

dll.)

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

Tujuan percakapan (basa-

basi, meminta remedial tes,

dll.)

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):

Terima kasih atas partisipasi Anda!

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


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‟?

4. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru senior (55 tahun) yang menjabat


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


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


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


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


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‟?

9. Anda sedang menyimak pelajaran di kelas seorang guru muda (25 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‟?

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



„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



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



„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



„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



16. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru senior (55 tahun) yang

berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di sekolah. Kemudian guru

38



PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN …

Documents

Transcript of PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT‟S SELECTION OF INDONESIAN …