asked the informant to use the voice cues of the speakers to answer ten questions see appendices M and N for the English version.
The MGT questions were based on questions used in previous matched guise studies in Burkino Faso, Africa Showalter 1991 but were adapted to the social situation in Jambi and translated into Jambi
Indonesian. The questions attempted to uncover information in three main areas: amount of identification with the speaker questions a, h, and i, the social status of the speaker questions b, c, d.1, d.2, and the
character of the speaker questions e, f, g.
A note must be made here that in the selection of bilingual speakers to make the recordings, there was difficulty in finding resident speakers of the area of study who were fluent enough in both languages,
and able to read and talk on tape well. Due to this difficulty, the speakers that were selected all had in common higher education and higher social status, and the majority of the speakers were no longer residing
in Jambi Seberang. This could have lead to a potential skewing of data, whereby the responses were generally more positive than otherwise. Yet, considering that all of the speakers had relatively equal
education levels and social statuses, it can be said that differences in responses to them were due to factors other than social status. And, according to the answers given to the questions, it is clear that the informants
were unable to judge the speakers’ actual situations.
3.4 Observation
To supplement the use of a questionnaire, it was necessary to use observation skills in order to determine if there are any differences between actual language usage and language posture how language helpers say
they use the language Kubchandani 1978. The importance of observation is stressed by all sociolinguistic researchers, and a good example of informal “interviews” with informants to assess language usage in
actuality is Labov’s famous 1966 “fourth floor” study in New York City. Observations of actual language usage, whether obtained from informal interviews, participant observation, or while administering the
questionnaire, were noted by the author.
However, due to the fact that the foreign researcher was highly conspicuous in an area that receives very few Western tourists, accurate language use observations were difficult to obtain. It was
found in most instances that people spoke almost entirely in Indonesian or Jambi Indonesian when the foreign researcher was present. Therefore, two assistants, respectively, natives of Mudung Laut and
Mudung Darat, were given instructions to make note of language use as they carried out their daily activities for a period of two to three days. They were given a form on which to note their observations see
appendix O, and appendix P for the English version. In an effort to make observations as natural as possible, they noted which language was used in a variety of situations and among a variety of speakers,
without the awareness of the speakers. Results of the structured language use observations were then examined with respect to language use results from the questionnaire and informal observations see
section 4.3.
3.5 Selection of informants
Based on census figures from Jambi City, Mudung Laut, and Mudung Darat, demographic information about the subjects in the area of study was gathered see appendix Q for a chart and sources. This aided in
deciding which variables may impact language use and attitudes among the Jambi Malays. It was determined that age, sex, education level, and location relative to the capital city were the main variables
relevant to this study. Occupation was another relevant factor; but, partly because accurate and clear information on occupations was difficult to obtain, it was not included as a main variable. Nevertheless, its
impact on questionnaire and MGT scores was examined briefly see section 4.4.7.
In terms of education, only those who had completed secondary level and below were included in the study. According to the most current census information, only 1 of the population in both Mudung
Laut and Mudung Darat had completed higher education Pelayangan Subdistrict Office records 2001; therefore, in an effort to avoid skewing the data, college graduates were excluded from the main analysis.
In both locations the breakdown of the variables was as shown in table 3.1. In order to increase the statistical validity of the results, a minimum of ten persons in each category was the goal. However, it was
acknowledged at the outset that some of the categories would not be able to reach the predetermined minimum of ten persons, since they were not representative of the population. For instance, women over
age fifty who had completed secondary education were extremely rare, if not non-existent. In addition, due to the lack of precise existing demographic data for age, sex, and education, representative proportions
were not obtainable. Thus, the matrix served only as a guide for the researchers, in order to ensure sufficient variety of informants studied within the relevant variable framework see Francis 1983.
Table 3.1 Matrix of variables Men
Women
Education level Age
Primary or less Secondary
Primary or less Secondary
Young 15–29 10
10 10
10 Middle 30–49
10 10
10 10
Old 50 + 10
10 10
10
The sampling method used was systematic random sampling; guidelines for random sampling were found in Grimes 1995. Based on information informally gathered, such as the number of houses and
the amount of ethnic homogeneity in each Rukun Tetangga RT, or neighborhood division, certain RTs were chosen for the study. In Mudung Laut, it was determined that RT 1, 2, 4, and 5 were the most
representative of the Jambi Malay people, in that they had the least amount of foreigners and were the closest in proximity to the Batanghari River. In Mudung Darat, all five of the RTs were studied in order to
reach a comparable number of informants minimum of 120. Mudung Darat is almost totally ethnically homogeneous.
Based on the number of households per RT, random numbers were computer generated, using the Social Psychology Network’s online “Research Randomizer” www.randomizer.org, to display
approximately one-fourth of the households. For example, RT 1 in Mudung Laut had fifty-four houses. According to the random numbers list, twenty-two houses beginning with 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, and so on were
chosen for the study. The researchers first chose a starting point in the RT, then went to house 2, 8, etc. to collect the data. The same random sampling approach was used in Mudung Darat, except that there was
less precise information available about the number of houses per RT. Therefore, random numbers were generated based on the average number of forty-five houses in each RT. See appendix R for the random
numbers list.
Once a researcher went to a house, it was his or her goal to interview as many people who fit in the variable matrix as possible within that household. The researcher administered the questionnaire,
followed by the matched guise test, the process taking approximately one-half hour to complete. Small monetary gifts were given to each informant afterwards.
3.6 Pilot test
