Chapter published in:
The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems: A comparative approach
Edited by Paul Bouissac
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 304] 2019
► pp. 253–287

Address, reference and sequentiality in Indonesian conversation

| The University of Melbourne
| The University of Sydney
Indonesian has an open pronoun system that provides speakers with a range of first and second person terms. Drawing on data from informal conversation, we examine second person expressions used for address and reference in sequence initiating actions in multiparty interaction. Previous work on English has shown that address and reference are bound up in the systematics of turn taking, and that these practices are context-sensitive. We show this is also the case for Indonesian and that: (a) variation in sequential placement of person terms does stancetaking work; (b) speakers can choose between long and short forms of a name, with short names regularly used for strong exhorting, often in a double-address structure spanning two intonation units; (c) the availability of multiple second person terms means that, unlike a language with limited second person terms such as English, second person reference can also achieve explicit addressing; (d) indeterminacy in both the structure and social action of an utterance can arise due to the frequency of allusive reference and the flexibility of word order in Indonesian. Our study contributes to current literature by showing how the dynamics of address and reference play out in a language with a much richer and varied set of person terms than English has.
Keywords: address terms, Indonesian, conversation analysis, personal pronoun, kin term, name, sequentiality, stance
Published online: 23 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.304.11ewi
References

References

Agha, A.
(2007) Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E.
(2010) Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse and Communication, 4(2), 161–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, S.
(1991) Functional change: The case of Malay constituent order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Djenar, D. N.
(2006) Patterns and variation of address terms in colloquial Indonesian. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 22.1-22.16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Which self? Pronominal choice, modernity, and self-categorizations. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 189(1), 31–54.Google Scholar
(2015) Pronouns and sociospatial ordering in conversation and fiction. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp. 195–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Djenar, D. N., Ewing, M. C., & Manns, H.
(2018) Style and intersubjectivity in youth interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., & Kärkkäinen, E.
(2012) Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4), 433–451.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
(2003) Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language, 79(1), 82–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In N. J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives (pp.97–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J., & Sidnell, J.
(2017) On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 515–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Stivers, T.
(Eds) (2007) Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, interaction (pp. 69–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Errington, J. J.
(1998) Shifting languages: Interaction and identity in Javanese Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ewing, M. C.
(2005) Colloquial Indonesian. In A. Adelaar & N. P. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (pp. 227–258). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2015) The kalau framing construction in Indonesian comics. In D. N. Djenar (Ed.), Linguistic Studies of Languages in and Around Indonesia, Youth language in Indonesia and Malaysia NUSA 58, 51–72, http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/10108​/84125.Google Scholar
(2016) Localising person reference among Indonesian youth. In Z. Goebel, D. Cole & H. Manns (Eds.), Margins, hubs, and peripheries in a decentralizing Indonesia ([Special Issue]. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 162), 26–41, https://​www​.tilburguniversity​.edu​/upload​/1ade6aa9​-8b51​-43a1​-9efc​-b7290a7a17bd​_TPCS​_162​_Special%20Issue​.pdfGoogle Scholar
In press). The predicate as a locus of grammar and interaction in colloquial Indonesian. Studies in Language.
Goffman, E.
(1983) Felicity’s condition. American Journal of Sociology 89(1), 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaswanti Purwo, B.
(1984) The categorical system in contemporary Indonesian: Pronouns. In J. Verhaar (Ed.), Towards a description of contemporary Indonesian: Part II (NUSA, Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia 19), 55–74.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S.
(2009) Style as stance: Stance as the explanation for patterns of sociolinguistic variation. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 171–194). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kridalaksana, H.
(1974) Second participant in Indonesian address. Language Sciences 31, 17–20.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1996) On the formal and functional relationship between topics and vocatives: Evidence from French. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 267–288). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
(1999) The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Sitg Johansson (pp. 107–120). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H.
(1996) On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: ‘Second person’ reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 281–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manns, H.
(2011) Stance, style and identity in Java. PhD Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Monash University.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, P. & Sonnenhauser, B.
(2013) Vocatives as functional performance structures. In B. Sonnenhauser & P. Noel Aziz Hanna (Eds.), Vocative!: Addressing between system and performance (pp. 283–303). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E.
(1992) Indexing gender. In C. Goodwin & A. Duranti (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70, 1075–1095. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction, Volume 1: A primer in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & M. Shohet
. (2013) The problems of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19, 618–638. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simons, G. F. & C. D. Fennig
(Eds.) (2018) Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 21st edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version: http://​www​.ethnologue​.com.Google Scholar
Sneddon, J. N.
(2006) Colloquial Jakartan Indonesian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sneddon, J. N., Adelaar, A., Djenar, D. N., & M. C. Ewing
(2010) Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. D.
(2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tamtomo, K.
(2012) Multilingual youth, literacy practices, and globalization in an Indonesian city: A preliminary exploration. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 41.Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
(2007) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Everett, D. L.
(2001) Pronoun borrowing. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27, 301–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Mysterious Address Term anata 'you' in Japanese [Topics in Address Research, 4], Crossref logo
Abtahian, Maya Ravindranath, Abigail C. Cohn, Dwi Noverini Djenar & Rachel C. Vogel
2021. Jakarta Indonesian first-person singular pronouns. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 7:2 ► pp. 185 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.