22
B. Research Setting
The research was conducted in two cities: Semarang and Yogyakarta. It was mostly done in Semarang because the main participant of this study lived in
Semarang. However, since she sometimes spent time in Yogyakarta, the writer conducted some observations in Yogyakarta too. The research was conducted
during September 2012 to May 2013.
C. Research Participants
This study mainly focuses on the utterances made by a bilingual child. In order to be able to note her utterances, the writer conducted some observations.
The writer supported the findings from the observations by conducting an interview with her parents. Thus, this study requires the main participant and the
supporting participants.
1. The Main Participant
The main participant of this study was a three-year-and-four-month old child who is called Rose. She lived in Semarang with her parents, Mr. and Mrs.
X. She was the only child of this family. Although Rose lived with her parents, she often gathered with her extended family. Most of her extended family
members used Bahasa Indonesia when they talked to Rose. Only one of Roses uncles and his family talked to Rose in English, namely, her uncle, her aunt, and
her two cousins. Her two cousins were English-Korean bilinguals. When they talked to Rose, they used English to each other. For additional information, the
parents and the extended family spoke Bahasa Indonesia, but sometimes they also
23 spoke Javanese to each other. They did not address Rose in Javanese, although she
was there when they were talking to each other using Bahasa Indonesia and sometimes Javanese.
Rose was identified as a bilingual because her mother used English to communicate with her since she was newborn, while her father mostly used
Bahasa Indonesia at the beginning, but then tried to use English. However, his limited English acquisition hindered him to speak English actively. Therefore, he
often created mixed utterances subconsciously when talking to Rose. Rose also joined a pre-play group class at school. Her school Daniel
Creative School attempted to use English as the main language to communicate, but the teachers did not speak English appropriately in practice. They often mixed
both English and Bahasa Indonesia in a single utterance when they addressed their students, including Rose.
Rose was chosen as the main participant of this study because she had a unique background family that caused her to mix languages. Based on the
information about her background, the writer concludes that the parents were on purpose to raise her bilingually interview on April 26, 2013.
2. The Supporting Participants
Rose’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. X, were chosen as the supporting participants of the study. Mrs. X was a graduate of English Language Education of Sanata
Dharma University Yogyakarta. She was able to speak English actively and always spoke English to Rose. On the other hand, Mr. X was a graduate of
Holmes Collage, Sydney, Australia. However, he could not speak English
24 actively. He mostly used Bahasa Indonesia when talking to Rose at the beginning,
but then he tried to use English. Unfortunately, he often created mixed utterances when he spoke to Rose. Mr. and Mrs. X themselves used both Bahasa Indonesia
and sometimes Javanese when talking to each other, although Rose was also there. However, they did not address Rose in Javanese.
They were chosen as the supporting participants of the study because they had the most frequent interaction with Rose. Thus, they played a big role in giving
authentic information to support this study. The information was given based on the guidelines from the writer, such as information about the set
ting of Rose’s daily environment, interlocutors, code-mixing emergence, and many more
supporting information see Appendix 1.
D. Research Instruments
There were two kinds of instruments used to collect data for this study, namely, observation sheets and an interview sheet. The following parts provide
more explanation about them.
1. Observation Sheets
This study was provided with some observation sheets as the guideline used to record data. There were two kinds of observation sheet, namely,
observation sheet for Roses parents and observation sheet for the writer. The observation sheet for Roses parents was used by the parents to note any of Roses
mixed utterances when the writer was not observing, whereas the observation sheet for the writer was used when the writer observed Rose directly. All the
25 observation sheets were intended to discover detailed information about
Rose’s code-
mixing production. They covered notes about Rose’s code-mixing production and the date of the occurring products. The example of the observation
sheets can be seen in table 3.1 and table 3.2. Table 3.1 shows the observations sheet used by Roses parents, whereas table 3.2 was the observation sheet used by
the writer.
Table 3.1 Observation Sheet for Roses parents Date
Mixed utterances Field Condition
Table 3.2 Observation Sheet for the writer Date
Code-mixing Production
Place City Supporting
Participants Field
Condition
2. Interview Sheet
In order to support the data collected from the observations, the writer conducted a focused
interview with Rose’s parents. A focused interview is an interview which is done in a short period of time Yin, 2009, p. 107. It allows the
interviewer to follow a certain set of questions Yin, 2009. Thus, it can be said that a focused interview only requires a short period of time because it allows the
26 interviewer to refer to a set of questions prepared previously. The list of questions
used in this study can be seen in Appendix 1. The interview was conducted in Semarang on April 26, 2013 and was recorded in form of notes. It attempted to
note the setting of Roses environment and any kind of informat ion about Rose’s
code-mixing.
E. Data Gathering Techniques
There were two techniques of data gathering employed in this study, namely, focused interview and participant-observation. In conducting the focused
interview, the writer used open-ended questions. The interview was conducted in a conversational manner, but the writer still followed a set of questions Yin,
2009, p. 107. On the other hand, this study also embraced participant-
observation, in which the observer is not supposed to be a passive observer Yin, 2009, p. 111. This type of observation enables the observer to take a role in the
setting of the case p. 111 and to experience reality as the participant does Marshall Rossman, 2006, p. 100. Therefore, in conducting the observations,
the writer was allowed to communicate and to interact with Rose. Nevertheless, as a case study requires, the observations were still done without manipulating the
setting, or in other words, they were conducted in the real-life context of the participant.
Firstly, the writer observed Rose’s daily interaction with people around her, especially her parents. In conducting the observations, the writer
communicated with Rose and used appropriate languages using both English and
27 Bahasa Indonesia properly, hence participant-observation Yin, 2009, p. 111.
Since Rose lived in Semarang and the writer was not able to observe Rose in Semarang for all the time, the writer asked Roses parents help. The writer
informed Roses parents about the definition and the examples of code-mixing and gave them an observation sheet. The writer also gave them some information
about how to fill the observation sheet see table 3.1. The observations were done during September 2012 to May 2013 in both Semarang and Yogyakarta.
Secondly, the writer interviewed Rose’s parents in order to discover
deeper information to support this study. The interview was a focused interview that was conducted in a short period of time because it focused on a set of
questions the writer had prepared Yin, 2009, p. 107. It was conducted in Semarang on April 26, 2013. The writer asked ten questions to Roses parents as
shown in Appendix 1 and recorded the data in form of notes.
F. Data Analysis
Kategori