Sabtu, 28 April 2012

JAVANESE FORMS OF ADDRESS


Purwati
English Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Educational Sciences, Galuh University

Abstract
This paper presents Javanese forms of address. It is written based on the fact the students of English Department still find difficulties in addressing others. Therefore, this paper examines the kinds of forms of addresses in Western culture and as a Javanese, the writer also explores how Javanese address to each other.
To cover all of the mentioned topics previously, this paper is designed into four major parts consisting of introduction, forms of address, Javanese forms of address and conclusion.
Key words:
Forms of addresses, Javanese forms of addresses

I.                   Introduction
As an  English tutor, I frequently hear my EFL students in Javanese settings (in this case West Javanese setting) greet me and other tutors with good morning, Ma’m; good morning. Sir; or even, good morning, Mister. This phenomenon would never happen in the academic atmosphere of Western culture in which Indonesian students who study there sometimes have a feeling of psychological uneasiness when charged by the Australian norms to address his lectures by their first names. These anecdotes might constitute reasons for conducting an investigation concerning Javanese forms of address. This potential investigation necessarily needs a review of the existing literature in the area as follows:

Forms of Address
            Brown and Ford (1964) have led the research on forms of address. Their study covered forms of address in American English. They used four kinds of data, which were drawn from: 1) modern American plays, 2) actual use in a Boston business firm, 3) reported usage of business executives, and 4) recorded usage in Midwest. Outcomes of the study are that Americans make use of first name (FN) and title plus last name (TLN). The use of FN and TLN might be symmetrical (reciprocal) as well as asymmetrical (non-reciprocal). The asymmetrical use between two speakers is due to occupational rank difference and/or age difference. This kind of difference is that usually refered to as power. Multiple uses of forms of address (interchangeably), however, might also be (solidarity exists. In this sense, Power (status) and intimacy (solidarity) are central.
            This is similar to Brown and Levinson’s (1987) idea when dealing with politeness. This is understandable, as the use of forms of address has a politeness impact, for it deals with force.
            Further to Brown and Ford’s (1964) basic tenets, Ervin-Tripp (1972) investigated forms of address of American English. She approached the study from sociolinguistic perspective. The sociolinguistic rules of the ideal competent adult members of western American academic community (pp.226-7)
Thus, Ervin-Tripp’s sociolinguistic rules and likely to be different from the real use of forms of address by conversant or interactants in real time conversations cautioning the reader of this difference, for she believes that real time use of forms of address needs another kind of approach.
This is what Thomas (1995) means by pragmatics when she discusses the difference between sociolinguistics and pragmatics. Thomas (1995) observes that sociolinguistics deals with the relatively constant rules of use of language in society, whereas pragmatics is concerned with the real use of available rules where modulation, manipulation, improvisation of the rules gives certain force to the relationship between speakers which are made effective; pragmatics, then is the performance aspect of sociolinguistics (Ervin-Tripp, 1972; Thomas, 1995)
            In her work of the sociolinguistics analysis of American English forms of address, Ervin-Tripp (1972) provides an interesting diagram where possible realization of the use of forms of address is determined. She provides selectors, which regulate such possible realization. Prominent among the selectors are the adult/child being of the addressee, status marked situations, rank and identity. Ervin-Tripp also discusses comparative studies on sociolinguistics rules of forms of address. She touches upon the differences in sociolinguistics rules of forms of address within the same language (English) and across languages (e.g., English, Russian, Korean, and Puerto Rican). Brown and Ford (1964) and Ervin-Tripp (1972) seem not to be mindful of the enterprise of teaching second/foreign language, when they give their sociolinguistic account of forms of address (be it monolingual or cross-lingual)
            Similar to Brown and Ford (1964) and Ervin-Tripp (1972) in that he applies sociolinguistic perspectives in his endeavors to compare English and Korean forms of address, Hwang (1975), however, has in mind that his comparison is used to predict potential difficulties encountered by Korean Learners of English, and English learners of Korean. His attempts to compare the forms of address in English and Korean are devoted to pedagogical implications the differences/similarities of forms of address in the two languages might bring about. Indeed, sociolinguistic perspectives on forms of address have undoubtedly provided the study of forms of address with insightful ideas.
            Yet, as Martiny (1996) has commented, following Ervin-Tripp (1972), the use of forms of address has been studied in the paradigm where conversant and/or interactants are in dyadic relationship; forms of address are viewed from the relational nature of the dyadic relationship between the two conversants and/or interactants. Martiny (1996) observes the importance the audience is used to provide a basis for a discussion of forms of address in French and Dutch. This discussion is conducted from a (socio) pragmatic point of address are significant in performing speech acts. This means that the discussion departs, perspective, or more accurately, extension of the sociolinguistic approach. Martiny (1996) believes that theu use of forms of address in influenced by elements previously mentiened in sociolinguistic literature such as the relationship between the speaker and addressee, sex, age and socio-economic backrground; besides, the use of forms of address might be affected by the speaker s pragmatic needs to manipulate the force of the speech act and to capture the addressee s attention.
Tjirebon, 3) Banjumas and Tegal, 4) Bagalen, 5) Jogjakarta and Kedu, 6) Surakarta, Madiun, and Semarang, 7) Rembang, 8) Tuban, Gresik, and Surabaja, 9) Malang and Pasuruan, and 10) Banjuwangi. (Sumukti, 1971, p. 3)
            Similar to Martiny (1996), Nickerson and Bargiela-Chiappini (1996) report a study on forms of address in European languages other than English. While Martiny (1996) deals with French and Dutch, Nickerson and Bargiela-Chippini (1996) are concerned with Dutch and Italian. Whilst Martiny (1996), does not present any empirical data, Nickerson and Bargiela-Chippini (1996) report a study where the empirical data were drawn from Dutch and Italian Business discourse. Their study collected discourse from four authentic meetings, two meetings in Dutch and two meetings in Italian. This study focuses on the mapping and of the semantic shift that occurs in the non-prototypical use of personal pronouns, the pragmatic significance of the shift, and contextual factors behind pronominal choices and personal address forms, e.g., first name and surname (p. 743). The study concludes that Dutch use of pronominal choice shows longer corporate image than Italian, which displays more self and other representation.
            The discussion above has explored the idea that forms of address have been initiated through sociolinguistic perspective. Early sociolinguistic approaches viewed the use of forms of address as governed by the relation between the speaker, in one party, and the addressee, in the other. Recent development has incorporated a pragmatic perspective in dealing with forms of address.
            The recent pragmatic perspectives of studies on forms of address have also encompassed the spirit of cross-cultural studies, which have been prominent since the initiation of sociolinguistic studies. As the present study concerns inter language pragmatics of Javanese forms of address significant in discussion, as encapsulated by the notion of transfer (Baba, 1999); Hill, 1997; Selinker, (1972), is discussion of how the Javanese address each other in their daily interactions. The notion of transfer leads to the asumpiton that the Javanese might refer to and use their L1 pragmatic knowledge of Javanese foms of address when they use Engish forms of address, when they use English forms of address, the result of which is the possibilty that the Javanese EFL students’ use of English forms of address is inappropriate viewed from English native speaker norms.

2. Javanese forms of address
            The focus of the following part is Javanese use of proper names and its possible modification and/or attributes. The choices available for the use of forms of address in Javanese daily conversation are not limited to options between the use of first name (FN) and the use of a title with the last name (TLN) as in American English (Brown&Ford, 1964). Forms of address in Javanese conversation (the Javanese conversation in general as well) is bound up with speech styles (Errington, bound up with speech styles (Errington, 1988; Sadtono, 1972; Wardhaugh, 2002), which could be classified into high, middle, and low.
            Speech styles, in Sumukti’s (1971) and Sudtono (1972) generally categorises speech levels into Ngokko (low), Madya (middle), and Krama des (village language), Basa Kedaton (palace language), and basa Kasar (vulgar language)
            Concurring with Brown and Ford’s (1964) formulation that the use of forms of address is dependent on the relational nature of the speaker and hearer, Errington (1988) observes that the use of Javanese forms of address also relies on the nature of relationship between the speaker and the hearer. He reports his informant’s words: whenever two people meet, they should ask themselves: Who is this person? Who am I? What this is person to me? (p.11). In other words, the use of forms of address in Javanese is part of the general Javanese socially ideal conduct of ungguh-ungguh, which comprises appropriate linguistic as well asnon-linguistic acts (Erringtoon, 1988)
            Besides that, the use of Javanese forms of address is also due to            the vast number of Javanese geographical as well as social dialects. It is daunting, if not impossible, to make rigorous claims of uniformity of forms of address among the dialects (Sadtono, 1972). Sadtono (1972) makes an approximation that there are about 30 Javanese geograpical dialicts, which he tentatively categorises into three major dialects: The kulonan (western) or Pego dialect in the westen part of central Java, including Banten, Indramayu, and Tjirebon dialects in West Java, The Central Javanese dialect in the eastern part of Central Java, extending to some western parts of East Java, the east Javanese dialect in the rest of East Java, excluding those areas where Madurese is spoken (Sadtono, 1972, p. 36)
            Regarding the geographical dialects, Poerwadarminta, as cited in Sumukti (1971), distinguishes ten Javanese geogeraphical dialects, i.e., 1) Banten, 2) Tjirebon, 3) Banjumas and Tegal, 4) Bagelan, 5) Jogjakarta and Kedu, 6) Surakarta, Madiun, and Semarang, 7) Rembang, 8) Tuban, Gresik, and Surabaja, 9) Malang and Pasuruan, and 10) Banjuangi
(Sumukti, 1971, p.3)
            With regard to the Javanese social dialects, Sadtono (1972) mentions that there are Basa Kedaton (the royal dialect of Surakarta Court), Basa Bagongan (the royal staff dialect of Jogjakarta court), basa Kasusastraan (Belletristic dialect), and Basa Pedalangan (theatrical dialect) (p.38-39). Elsewhere, still amplifying the Javanese social dialects, he mentions that Standard Javanese is equal to Krama Madya. The word Krama Madya, here, reminds us of the speech styles or speech levels aforementioned. However, further discussions of the geographical as well as social dialects are beyond the present essay; instead, it is focused on the seemingly universal aspects of the use of Javanese forms of address. In other words, the discussion is limited to sociolinguistic as well as pragmatic dimensions.
            Referring to the previous discussion, the sociolinguistic aspect refers to the relatively constant rule governing such use, whereas the pragmatic aspect deals with the modulation, manipulation, or improvisation which generates a certain force (subjectively deliberate) within the acceptable sociolinguistic framework in a given society or language variety (e.g., Javanese). Articulating Sadtono’s (1972) observation, sociolinguistically the key factors attributable the use of Javanese forms of address are: the gradation of respect for different people concerning age, social status, social stratum. Moreover, genealogical and kinship relationship and the principle of self-condescension. This formulation is not different from that of others (e.g., Brown&Ford, 1964;Ervin-Tripp, 1972) expect for the principle of self extent to which the measurement of such sociolinguistic factors can be articulated is subjectively between the parties involved in real-in-time conversations or interactions (Erringtom, 1988)
            As previously mentioned, the unggah-unggah in Javanese is the influential determinant of the use of forms of address; yet, the oscillatory maneuvers in terms of the linguistic as well as  non-linguistic choices (including forms of address) which are possible within the ungah-unggah framework, are (inter) subjectively determined. As the relationship between the interactants continues over time, pragmatically, the interactants are always on guard, monitoring their relationship, and therefore, modulating the use of forms of address within the acceptable sociolinguistic framework (unggah-unggah) in the case of Javanese). This is what Errington (1988) means by the ways priyayi (high status person) directly or indirectly corrected my usage, instructed others in how to address me, and changed their linguistic usage to fit their changing relations with me and others led me to see that more rides socially on use of some speech elements than others. These relatively interactively important elements I have come to think of as relatively pragmatically salient (pp. 17-8, emphasis original). Here, I (as a Javanese), would add that what Errington (1988) reports is not limited to priyayi. Those other than priyayi are very likely to offer similar comments.
            As mentioned above, Javanese are obliged as to choose choice of the speech styles (levels). Since the subjects of the present study are ordinary Javanese, vis-a-vis the royal elite (priyayi) circle, the possible speech styles shared are believed to be ngoko and krama. Errington (1988) equalizes ngoko and krama to French T/V from phenomena; ngoko is equal to tu, whereas krama to vous. In terms of the use of proper names, it is unlikely that within the use of krama, one addresses the addressee with a njangkar proper name (a name without any additional term either royal or kinship terms), for njangkar signifies intimacy intimacy which is unlikely to be realized in daily krama conversation between or among ordinary Javanese people (Errington, 1988). It follows that the use of njangkar is likely to be realised within ngoko conversations. However, this phenomenon is difficult to account for from the constant sociolinguistic perspective.
            Crucial in the discussion of forms of Javanese address is the notion of trap-trapan or application. As Errington (1988) puts it, shared knowledge of conventions of use must always be assimilated to knowledge of code-contingent, hic et nunc of interaction by gauging message content, presence of bystanders, location of interaction, enduring biographical relation, and a huge variety of variably relevant information that eludes normative descriptions of pragmatic value (pp. 107)
            Drawing from the previous sociolinguistic perspectives, the variables might be categorized into those attributable to the power (status) and intimacy (solidarity) framework. Yet, there is one variable that refers to a similar idea of Martiny’s (1996) audience, i.e., Errington’s (1988) bystanders. This element has been overlooked in the traditional sociolinguistic framework (e.g., that Brown&Ford, 1964 and Ervin-Tripp, 1972). In view of the notion of (pragmatic) transfer, audience might be one of the determinant factors attributable to the pragmatic realization of forms of address.

3.  Conclusion
            To summarize, empirically, studies on interlanguage pragmatics lack evidence of how EFL students use English forms of address. The studies have been focused on speech acts of apologies, requests, complaints, compliment response, and refusals. The key point that can be drawn from the existing literature on interlanguage pragmatics is that interlanguage pragmatic studies often necessitate the use of data gathered from native speakers to provide norms on to which data collected from the EFL subjects can be mapped. Theoretically, discussion of forms of address requires not only sociolinguistic perspectives where rules governing the use of forms of address are viewed as relatively constant or stable, but also pragmatic consideration. Theoretically, as well, studies on forms of address have concentrated on the notion that use of forms of address is affected only by the dyadic relational nature between conversants or interactants.
            Recent development has demonstrated, however, that audience serves as an attributable factor for the use of forms of addrss. Therefore, the focus of the potential study is the endeavour to explore how javanese EFL students use English forms of address in situations where not only factors of dyadic conversants, which include power (status) and intimacy (solidarity), but also the third party of audience is involved; power and solidarity are then viewed in the relations among three parties of speaker hearer-audience.

Refferences:
Baba, J. 1999. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Compliment responses by learners of Japanese and English as a second language, Muenchen: Lincom Europa.
Brown, R., and Ford, M. 1964. Address in American English. In D. Hymes (Ed), Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthtopology (pp. 234-244), New York: Harper&Row.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Djajeng Wasito, S. 1975. Javanese Speech Styles: A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Social Constraints. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI
Errington, J.J. 1988. Structure and Style in Javanese: A Semiotic View of Linguistic Etiquette. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1972. Sociolinguistic Rules of Address. In J.B. Pride and J. Sadtono, E. 1972. Javanese Diglossia and Its Pedagogical Implications. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL, 10 (3): 2009-231.
Sumukti, R. 1971, Javanese Morphology and Morphophonemics, Ann Arbor, Michigan:UMI
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4: 91-112.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Wardhaugh, R. 2002, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (4th edn). Malden: Blackway Publishers, Inc.

Penulis:
Purwati
Dosen pada Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Program Studi Baha

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar