Difference in the Assessment of Social Status

action. 437 As the baseline data in investigating the evidence of sociopragmatic transfer which may potentially be made by ELs, in this section, AEs‘ and INs‘ social perceptions and assessments on social status, ranking of imposition and familiarity as given contextual variables in the present study which may be involved in the way how they use any thanking strategies are first investigated. As the result, both groups of NSs have significant difference on their social perception of the assessment of the social status of the interlocutors. AEs are proven sensitive to high-imposition favor which can be repaid and not.

a. Difference in the Assessment of Social Status

For INs, the decision to use apology in showing indebtedness ties to the social status of the favor giver as. Apology is only used by more than half of INs in situation 2, a situation where every participant is situated to feel indebted with money as high-imposition favor which can be repaid. 438 Situation 12 also situates participants to feel indebted with money. But, in situation 12, more than half of INs prefer to use repayment. 439 The only different contextual variable between situations 2 and 12 is the social status of the favor givers. In situation 2, situated as a student, every participant is asked to thank to a professor as a person with higher-status. In situation 12, situated as senior student, every participant thank to junior student as a person with lower-status level. In contrast to INs, having nothing to do with the social status of the favor giver, AEs use repayment strategy as long as they identify that the favor being thanked is 437 Gabriele Kasper 1992, op.cit. p. 209. 438 Table 5.2 IN 1-2, 4-6 and 8 Appendix 5 439 Table 5.12 IN 1-6, 9-10 Appendix 5 high-imposition favor which can be repaid. Both in situation 2 and 12, more than half of AEs use repayment. 440 Then, the characteristic of INs who are sensitive to status differences is also reflected by the way they use alerter strategy which is functioned as address term. Not depending on given contextual variables, in every situation, more than half of INs address the favor giver by using at least one alerter strategy, either title or name, in their expressions of gratitude to, accompany their use of thanking strategy. But, in the execution, INs seems eager to give higher respect to the professor by using at least one title. Meanwhile, INs imply use name in addressing every favor giver with lower-status level or equal-status to the thankers. In every low-status situation which situates every thanker as a student with lower-status and every favor giver as a professor with higher-status, more than half of INs as the thankers address the professor by using at least one alerter in the subcategory of title in accompanying their use of thanking strategy in their expressions of gratitude. For example, Terima kasih banyak Pak atas bantuannya. ‗Thank you Mr. for the help.‘ 441 In every low-status situation, titles which are used by INs to address the professor are Prof as abbreviation of Profesor ‗Profesor‘, Pak ‗Mr‘, Bapak ‗Mr‘, and Bu ‗Ma‘am‘. Some INs address the professor by mentioning the name of the professor after the title. For example, Terima kasih Prof. Lili untuk kesempatannya. … ‗Thank you Prof. Lili for the chance. …‘ 442 It is also acceptable to combine two titles to address the professor: Terima kasih banyak, Pak Prof . … ‗Thank you 440 Table 5.2, 5-12 AEs Appendix 5 441 Table 5.3 IN 3 Appendix 5 442 Table 5.5 IN 5 Appendix 5 very much Mr. Prof . …‘ 443 The main point is that, it seems extremely important for INs as the thankers to address the professor by using at least one alerter strategy in the subcategory of title. For INs, it seems inappropriate to address the professor by directly mentioning the name. In contrast, in every high-status situation situation 1, 7, 12, and 18 except in situation 4 and 17, which situates every thanker as a senior student with higher- status and every favor giver as a junior student with lower-status; and in every equal-status situation 6, 9, 14, 15, and 16 except in situation 11, which situates every thanker as a student has equal-status to every favor giver, more than half of INs simply use alerter in the subcategory of name included abbreviation of name, or endearment term in accompanying their use of thanking strategy in their expression of gratitude. 444 It indicates that, for INs, it is appropriate to address favor giver with lower-status or equal-status by directly mentioning the name. It seems clear that there is a pattern that exhibits that INs are people who are sensitive to status differences. According to Cheng, having a culture with strong awareness of status differences, Chinese society is traditionally categorized as non-egalitarian. 445 Similar to Chinese culture, INs also have a status-conscious culture. Thus, INs are also categorized as non-egalitarian which have a social perception that people cannot be treated in the same way. INs vary the preference of the subcategories of strategy functioned as address term based on their assessment of social status of the the favor givers as the interlocutors. It is in line with what Hinkel argued that, in Indonesian communities, the use of linguistic 443 Table 5.2 IN 4 Appendix 5 444 Table 5.1, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.12, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, and 5.18 INs Appendix 5 445 Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. p.104. politeness is entirely related to the assessment of social status, refinement, status and control of the interlocutors. 446 In some low-status situations, it is proven that, all AEs using address terms in accompanying their use of thanking strategy in their expressions of gratitude also address the professor by using at least one alerter strategy in the subcategory of title. For example, Thanks a lot Professor. 447 There is no AE who simply addresses the professor by using name. Meanwhile, all AEs who use address terms in accompanying their use of thanking strategy in their expressions of gratitude address every favor giver with lower-status and equal-status to AEs as the thanker by simply using alerter strategy in the subcategory name. At a glance, in some cases, few AEs, similar to INs, also vary the preference in the subcategories of alerter strategy functioned as address term based on their assessment of social status of the interlocutors. But, the statistically significant trend of AEs in expressing gratitude never once goes toward alerter strategy functioned as address term, either title or name. Thus, the act of addressing of few AEs which explained above cannot be generalized. The main point is that, by sociopragmatic approach, in every situation, not depending on status differences or any contextual variables, the majority of AEs never use any alerter to address every favor giver, whosoever they are, professor, classmate, or junior student. Arguing that cultural values are reflected by lexical of the languages, Wierzbicka believes that, English or any other culture, which indiscriminately uses you to address everyone is a culture which believe that everybody is equal 446 Eli Hinkel 1992, op.cit. p. 3. 447 Table 5.3 AE 1 Appendix 5 because, besides as a distance-building device, the English you is a great social equalizer to address everybody in the same way. 448 Since American is a culture where one basic term of address is the English you, it is not surprising that, in the case of alerter, in contrast to INs, AEs treat everybody in the same way. Supporting this view, Hijrida – Sohn also affirm that, reflected by the patterns and the usages of honorifics, Americans are proved as the people who are less sensitive to status differences due to their egalitarian value orientation. 449 Supporting the fact that Americans are egalitarian people who believe that everybody is equal, Cheng stated that many American professors let and ask the students to call them by only mentioning their name, for example, Don’t call me professor, call me John. 450 Moreover, the present study also finds that, in almost all cases, AEs simply use you to address the professor in their expressions of gratitude. For example, one AE expresses her gratitude to the professor they know so well: ―Thank you. I will make sure to pay you back.‖ 451 As indicated by the data, for INs, it is also inappropriate to mention the professor by using kamu or anda which equals to you in English since there is no one IN does it. Not only influencing the subcategories of alerter functioned as address term which are preferred by INs, the social perception of non-egalitarian which believes that all people are unequal also influence INs to use more alerter strategy in some low-status situation. In situation 2 and 5, besides addressing the professor as the favor giver by using at least one title in accompanying their use of thanking, 448 Anna Wierzbicka 2003, op.cit. p.47. 449 Ibid. p. 107. 450 Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. p. 103 . 451 Table 5.2 AE 6 Appendix 5 more than half of INs also change every word should be you in English with at least one title. For example, ―Terima kasih banyak ya Prof. Maaf Prof. gara-gara kecerobohan saya jadi merepotkan Prof. Membiarkan Prof. membayar pulpen tersebut. Thank you very much Prof. I am sorry Prof because of my carelessness, I am troubling you Prof. Letting you Prof. pay the book.‖ 452 The social perception of non-egaliterian of INs is proved underlying their performance of linguistic action since INs vary the preference of the subcategories of alerter strategy functioned as address terms based on their assesment of social status of the favor givers. Then, the social perception of egalitarian which is adopted by almost all AEs is also proved underlying their linguistic performance since they treat everybody equally; almost all AEs never use alerter to address the favor givers, whosoever they are. This condition may lead ELs to do negative sociopragmatic transfer since there are statistically significant difference between social perceptions of INs and AEs which underlie their performance in the preference of the subcategories of alerter strategy. b. Difference in the Assessment of Ranking of Imposition In responding to high-imposition favors which can be repaid, repayment strategy is more preferable for AEs. But, in responding to high-imposition favors which cannot be repaid, for AEs, appreciation strategy is more preferable. Appreciation strategy is only used by more than half of AEs in situation 3 and 5. 453 Besides as low-status situations, the noticeable contextual variable which is 452 Table 5.2 IN 1 Appendix 5 453 Table 5.3 and 5.5 AEs Appendix 5 similar between these two situations are high-imposition contexts. In the present study, besides situation 3 and 5, low-status situation 2 is eventually situated every participant to feel indebted with high-imposition favor. But, in situation 3 and 5, the high-imposition favors are the time of the professor to be interviewed and the kindness of the professor in permitting the thankers to rescheduling the exam. These favors eventually cannot be repaid with money; hence, appreciation seems more preferable for AEs in situation 3 and 5. In low-status situation 2, every participant is situated to feel indebted with money as high-imposition favor which can be repaid. In this situation, more than half of AEs prefer to use repayment. 454 This fact reveals that, by sociopragmatic approach, for AEs, besides the social status of the interlocutors, the decision in using appreciation ties to high-imposition favors which cannot be repaid. Meanwhile, the decision in using repayment strategy ties closely to the context of high-imposition favor which can be repaid, such as money. This analysis is supported by the fact that in high- status situation 12 which situates every participant indebted to a junior student over money as high-imposition which can be repaid, repayment is used by more than half of AEs. 455 In contrast to AEs, in every situation, almost all INs never use appreciation strategy in expressing gratitude to the favor giver, whoseover they are and even it is a professor. This condition leads ELs to do negative sociopragmatic transfer in using appreciation strategy since L1 assessment of contextual variables of low- status and high-imposition which cannot be repaid is incongruent in L2 context. 454 Table 5.2 AEs Appendix 5 455 Table 5.12 AEs Appendix 5

D. Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer in Expressions of Gratitude by

Indonesian Learners of English T his section is to answer the research question two: ―What is the evidence of the pragmatic transfer in the expressions of gratitude which are made by Indonesian learners of English?‖ In this section, in investigating the evidence of pragmatic transfer at pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic level, the baseline data is compared by expressions of gratitude which are made by ELs as Indonesian learners of English.

1. Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer

According to the expressions of gratitude which are made by in every given situation, similar to AEs and INs, thanking strategies in Cheng‘s thanking taxonomy are used by ELs. But, as Kasper stated, evidences of pragmatic transfer is only found when a statistical ly significant trend of NSs of learners‘ L1 toward one of the alternatives is then paralleled by a significant trend of language learners toward the same alternative when they are in L2 context. 456 Thus, in the present study, the evidences of pragmatic transfer are only found in the use of thanking and alerter since the statistically significant trends of INs toward the alternatives of the use of those strategies are then paralleled by the statistically significant trends of ELs toward the same alternatives. The evidences of pragmatic transfer in the present study are explained as follow: 456 Gabriele Kasper 1986, op.cit,. p.223.