Table 4.64 MGT scores for B. by language test: paired samples t-test
In table 4.65, however, the difference in scores for Nyimas’ Indonesian and Jambi Malay was statistically significant t statistic -3.65, p .0003. In this case, there was a large gap between the higher
Indonesian average and the lower Jambi Malay average. Noteworthy is the fact that Nyimas has had the most contact with foreigners on a daily basis in her workplace in Jambi City despite living in Jambi
Seberang, and that numerous times her voice in Indonesian was mistaken for a well-known high-level government official.
Table 4.65 MGT scores for Nyimas by language test: paired samples t-test
4.5.4 Differences between the matched guise test and the questionnaire
The matched guise test results on the whole varied substantially with the results from the questionnaire. It is impossible to compare their averages with validity, yet it is important to mention that for nearly every
variable above age, education level, sex, and location the MGT results were different in some way from the questionnaire results. For example, we saw that age and sex made significant differences in
questionnaire scores, while those variables did not significantly impact MGT scores.
In fact, vastly different results happened at times, such as in the MGT finding that the old have much higher attitudes towards Indonesian than the young. And location was statistically significant for the
MGT, but not for the questionnaire. Only in the education level variable was there a match-up between the questionnaire and MGT, whereby significant differences in scores were noted in both. Yet in the education
level variable the directionality of attitudes towards Indonesian was reversed in the MGT from the questionnaire. In many of the cases, though, individual questions in the questionnaire specifically dealing
with language attitudes did result in more similar findings with the matched guise test.
4.5.5 Summary of matched guise test results
Overall, a significant difference between the Indonesian and Jambi Malay recordings in the MGT was not found in this study. Two of the speakers had very slightly higher scores for Jambi Malay versus Indonesian,
and the remaining two speakers had higher scores for Indonesian than Jambi Malay. Where Indonesian had a higher score, there was a larger gap between SI and JM, and for one of the speakers it was statistically
significantly larger. However, in that statistically significant case, the results may be skewed since the speaker’ voice was often mistaken for an ex-governor’s wife. Thus, the difference between attitudes
towards JM and SI was so scant a distinction can hardly be made. But the scales were slightly tipped towards more positive attitudes towards Indonesian than JM.
The differences found between the MGT and the questionnaire were also discussed, and it was shown how in every variable studied, MGT results varied from questionnaire results. This could be due to a
problem inherent in the MGT which skewed results, or simply that reported language attitudes may not always be the same as actual attitudes observed or tested for indirectly. However, in many of the individual
questionnaire questions which dealt with language attitudes, findings were more in line with MGT results. This indicates that language attitudes do not necessarily match up with language usage, which seems to be
true for Jambi Malay people. This phenomenon was observed by Southworth in India 1985:227–228; he discussed the tendency for people to regard one language as “best”, but “[i]f we look at the actual
behavior
10
of people in contemporary stratified societies, we see a different picture. Whatever people’s expressed or unexpressed views toward ‘correct’ language may be, when they use language they tend to use
a variety which is appropriate to the context.”
4.6 Differences among researchers 4.6.1 Introduction
