Abstract :

Recent studies have reported that the use of language does not merely reflect on the communicative function, but also identifies the social status of the speakers. This research presents an explanation and of these findings in terms of the use of Jakartanese personal pronouns gue by non-Jakartan regarding the construction of social identity seen from the perspective of Social Identity Theory (SIT). Observation was employed to investigate the occurrence of this pronoun in conversations among the participants, and semi-structured interviews are used to find out the underlying motivations. Results show that by using gue, participants undergo the process of social Identity Theory and are able to enact stances, mostly familiarity and ‘coolness’ which becomes a prime aspect for them to construct self-identity.

---

Keywords :

Identity, Personal Pronoun, Social Identity Theory.

---

References :

1. Boellstorff, T. (2002). Ethnolocality. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 3(1), 24-48.
2. Chambers, R. (2007). From PRA to PLA and pluralism: Practice and theory. IDS Working Paper 286. Institute of Development Studies.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education, 6th edn. Routledge.
3. Djenar, D. N. (2012). Almost unbridled: Indonesian youth language and its critics. South East Asia Research, 20(1), 35-51.
4. Djenar, D. N., Ewing, M. C., & Manns, H. (2017). Style and intersubjectivity in youth interaction. De Gruyter Mouton.
5. Djenar, D. N., Ewing, M. C., & Manns, H. (2018). Style and Intersubjectivity in Youth Interaction. In O. Garcia and F. M. Hult (eds.) Contributions to the Sociology of Language. Walter de Gruyter, Inc.
6. Du Bois, J. (2007). The stance triangle. In R Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: subjectivity, evaluation and interaction. John Benjamins.
7. Englebretson, R. (2007). Grammatical resources for social purposes: some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: subjectivity, evaluation and interaction. John Benjamins.
8. Errington, J. J. (1985). Language and social change in Java: Linguistic reflexes of modernization in a traditional royal polity. Center for International Studies, Ohio University.
9. Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
10. Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (eds), Intergroup Behaviour. Oxford.
11. Jaffe, A. (2009). Introduction: the sociolinguistics of stance. In A Jaffe (ed.) Stance: sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford University Press.
12. Kiesling, S. (2004). Dude. American Speech, 79(3), 281-305.
13. MacIntyre, R. (2017). The Use of Personal Pronouns in the Writing of Argumentative Essays by EFL Writers. RELC Journal, 003368821773013.
14. Manns, H. (2012). First-person pronominal variation, stance and identity in Indonesia. Australian journal of linguistics, 32(4), 435-456.
15. Meyerhoff, M. (2006). Introducing sociolinguistics. Routledge.
16. Ochs, E. (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder and G. Herdt (eds) Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development. Cambridge University Press.
17. Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In: Meaning in Anthropology. Edited by Keith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby. University of New Mexico Press.
18. Smith‐Hefner, N. J. (2007). Youth language, gaul sociability, and the new Indonesian middle class. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), 184-203.
19. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social science information, 13(2), 65-93.