51
Functions of Code-mixing
Supporting Evidence Phatic
Not identified
Metalinguistic Not identified
Poetic
Not identified Source: Language Contact and Bilingualism Rene Appel and Pieter Muysken,
2005
c. The Analysis of Roses Code-mixing Reasons
As stated before that in order to answer the second formulated problem, the writer used a combination of some theories, i.e. the theory on bilingualism
typology Weinrich, 1953 and Ervin Osgood, 1954 as cited in the work of Hakuta, 1986 and the theory on functions of code-mixing Appel Muysken,
2005. From the discussion in classifying Roses bilingualism type, it was
eventually discovered that Rose was a compound bilingual. Rose was identified as a compound bilingual because the characteristics of compound bilingualism were
found in her. English and Bahasa Indonesia were introduced to Rose and used concurrently in her family. Rose also had the tendency to translate as confirmed
by her parents in the interview see Appendix 1 question number 4 and table 4.7. Therefore, she was a compound bilingual.
On the other hand, there were two functions of code-mixing identified in Roses mixing, namely, directive function and expressive function. Directive
function deals with the change of language uttered by the speaker in order to include or exclude the hearer from the conversation Appel Muysken, 2005, p.
119. In this study, Rose changed the language from English to Bahasa Indonesia when the hearer did not understand what she said in English see Appendix 1
52 question number 4. Thus, it is discovered that she wanted to address the hearer
with the language which could be understood by the hearer so that the hearer could have a conversation with her.
Expressive function was identified due to Roses mixed identity. Mixed identity means that there were two languages used in Roses daily life. The adults
who had intense interaction with her, namely, her father and teachers, often mixed English and Bahasa Indonesia in single utterances when they were interacting
with Rose. Moreover, her friends at school also mixed languages. Therefore, for Rose, the presence of the two languages in an utterance was normal.
Based on the research results, the writer proposes two possible reasons for Roses code-mixing. Firstly, Rose mixed languages because people around her
also mixed languages when they were talking to Rose. Therefore, mixing languages became normal in her mind and became her identity. A mixed identity
which leads the speaker to create mixed utterances is the point of the expressive function of mixing, as proposed by Appel and Muysken 2005. Rose was
surrounded by people who spoke an inappropriate language, namely, her father, her teachers, and her friends. She might have imitated them since imitation is very
possible for children because the nature of children themselves is learning by imitating others. They are able to imitate others since they are very young,
including imitating the sound patterns that other people make Piaget, 1951. Furthermore, this statement is supported by the proof that when Rose was playing
with her friend at school, her friend created a mixed utterance which she imitated: Ini cross, see table 4.5. In other words, Roses act of mixing languages was
53 affected by the exposure from others in her environment. Unfortunately, the
findings in this study show negative exposure from people around Rose. Secondly, Rose mixed languages because she had the tendency to
translate. She was a compound bilingual see table 4.7. The two languages were interchangeable and were the same in meaning in her mind. Therefore, she might
have felt free to replace one word in a certain language with another word in the other language because for compound bilinguals, the meaning they want to deliver
will not be affected by the change of the language they use. This possible reason was drawn regarding the fact that code-mixing would not be found in a coordinate
bilinguals utterances because coordinate bilinguals believe that the two languages are different in meaning and not interchangeable. Therefore, there is a big
possibility that code-mixing will only be created by compound bilinguals. This second possible reason for Roses code-mixing was drawn by considering the
theory on bilingualism typology Weinrich, 1953; Ervin Osgood, 1954 as cited in the work of Hakuta, 1986.
C. Other Findings
In collecting and analyzing the data in order to answer the formulated problems, the writer also revealed other important findings. According to Peal and
Lambert 1962, bilingualism gives positive effect to the individuals cognitive ability. Hakuta 1986 states, ...bilinguals enjoy a certain advantage in cognitive
flexibility over their monolingual counterparts. This theory is proposed by Hakuta based on the research of Peal and Lambert 1962, who compare the
