11 lexical borrowing deals with the act of borrowing single words from one language
in order to be used in another language pattern. In conclusion, a language phenomenon is called code-mixing if it has
the features of code-switching or borrowing. This definition is supported by Muysken 2000 who states, Code-mixing refers to all cases where lexical items
and grammatical features from two languages appear in one sentence. The following is an example of English-German code-mixing taken from Cantones
work 2007, p. 70, I go to the movie with my fratello, which means I go to the movie with my brother.
b. Typology of Code-mixing
Code-mixing is classified based on its usage and its emergence. Muysken 2000 classifies code-mixing into three types. They are insertion,
alternation, and congruent lexicalization p. 3. They are described as follows: 1 Insertion
In describing this type, Muysken 2000 states, A single constituent B with words b from the same language is inserted into a structure defined by
language A, with word a from that language. In other words, it can be said that in this type, a word or a phrase of a language is inserted into the grammatical
structure of another language. Following Muyksens account, Cantone 2007 says, Inserting an element comes close to lexical borrowing, but whereas
borrowing only covers the insertion of lexical items, insertion can imply larger structures, such as whole phrases. p. 69.
12 Cantone 2007 gives an example of insertion involving English and
German, I go to the movie with my fratello. From this example, it is clear that a German word fratello is inserted into a sentence with English grammatical
structure. The figure 2.1 is the representation of the explanation.
A B A
… a … … b… … a…
Figure 2.1 Insertion Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code- mixing, Muysken, 2000, p. 7
In this study, A
represents English.
a shows grammatical structure of English. B
represents Bahasa Indonesia.
b shows words in Bahasa Indonesia that are inserted in an English sentence.
In addition, Muysken 2000 says that defining the base or matrix language is crucial for insertional code-mixing p. 60. Myers-Scotton 1993
proposes that Matrix Language ML is the main language in CS [mixed] utterances in a number of ways as cited by Muysken, 2000, p. 64. CS refers to
code-switching. Thus, Matrix Language ML is the dominant language and the non-dominant language is called the Embedded Language EL Namba, 2004.
Namba also says, MLs provide abstract grammatical frames where ELs are inserted.
13
2 Alternation
This type of code-mixing is different from the previous one, insertion. Insertion deals with how single constituents of one language are inserted into
another language pattern, whereas alternation does not only insert some constituents of a language into another language pattern, but it also involves the
grammar of the language Muysken, 2000, p. 5. Muysken also says that alternation is a true switch from one language to the other p. 5. Based on this
explanation, the writer assumes that alternation is more understandable because
the organization is easy to understand.
From figure 2.2, it can be seen that a group of words from language A with language A
’s grammatical structure is followed by a group of words from language B with language B
’s grammatical structure Muysken, 2000, p. 7. For this reason, it is possible for any bilingual speaker to start speaking one language
and finish in another language Poplack, 1980 in Romaines work, 1995, p. 123. Therefore, it can be concluded that alternation deals with mixing languages
between clauses. Cantone 2007 gives an example of English-German alternation as follows: She went to quel ristorante allangolo, which means She went to
that restaurant at the corner p. 70. The explanation is illustrated in figure 2.2 on the following page.
14 A
B
…a… …b…
Figure 2.2 Alternation Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code- mixing, Muysken, 2000, p. 7
In this study, A
represents English.
a shows English words with English grammatical structure. B
represents Bahasa Indonesia.
b shows words in Bahasa Indonesia with its own sentence structure. 3 Congruent lexicalization
In explaining this type of code-mixing, Muysken 2000 states, It appears that there is a largely but not necessarily completely shared structure,
lexicalized by elements from either language. To be more understandable, Muysken takes an example of English and Dutch mixing from Crama and van
Gelderen 1984 as follows: Weet jij whaar Jenny is? In English, this utterance
means Do you know where Jenny is? The constituent where Jenny is is understandable as English structure, whereas the word where is close to a Dutch
word waar p. 5. This case belongs to congruent lexicalization because there is a shared structure of English and Dutch in the word whaar .
Muysken 2000 also says that in congruent lexicalization, the grammatical structure is shared by language A and B, and words from both
language a and b are inserted more or less randomly. The explanation is represented in the figure on the following page.
15 AB
…a… …b… …a… …b…
Figure 2.3 Congruent Lexicalization Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing, Musken, 2000, p. 8
In this study, A
represents English.
a shows English words. B
represents Bahasa Indonesia.
b shows words in Bahasa Indonesia
In conclusion, the writer assumes that code-mixing is a case where the elements of two languages are found in a single utterance. Based on the previous
explanation, it can be said that people can mix languages because they are able to use those languages. Thus, code-mixing is closely related to bilingualism.
Furthermore, code-mixing is not only created by adult bilinguals, but also by bilingual children, as examined in this study. Therefore, code-mixing is possible
to be found in the utterances of people both children and adults who acquire at least two languages.
c. The Functions of Code-mixing
