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:
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
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
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).
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
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
S A S A S S S S A A
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
[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.
Retrieved on November 14th
, 2016 from
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.
Retrieved on November 16th
, 2016 from
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
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‟?
4. Saat jam istirahat di kantin, Anda bertemu dengan guru senior (55 tahun) yang menjabat
sebagai Kepala Sekolah yang berkepribadian ramah dan terkenal dekat dengan siswa/i di
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‟?
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
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‟?
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
tersebut mengajak bicara Anda untuk sekedar basa-basi. Mana yang akan Anda gunakan
sebagai kata sapaan ketika berbicara dengan guru tersebut, „aku‟ atau „saya‟?
Top Related