14
Other reasons for code-switching are presented by Hoffmann 1991. She writes in her book An Introduction to Bilingualism that “the reasons for code-
switching are manifold” 1991: 115. From the examples that she provided, many reasons are contextual, situational and personal class. She describes that switching
normally happens when the speaker is quoting someone else. As Holmes referred to “referentially oriented code switch” 2001: 37 which is used to emphasize
precise massage content. The second reason is that when the speaker is being emphatic about something. The last reason, in addition, is that when the speaker
repeats their utterance for clarification. Some additional reasons for code-switching are explained by Oksaar 1974,
Poplack 1980 and Calsamiglia and Tusón 1984 as cited by Hoffmann 1991 said that people might switch their code to express their group identity and to
show solidarity with a certain group.
d. Code-switching and Language Learning
Social factors, as stated by Ellis 1997 on his book Second Language Acquisition
, have an indirect effect, influencing the communication the learners engage in and through this rate and possibly the route of interlanguage
development. One of the external factors to explain why learners acquire an L2 in certain ways is input or “the samples of language to which a learner is exposed”
Ellis, 1997: 5 that they receive. However, interactionist theories of L2 acquisition acknowledge the importance of input and internal language
processing. Therefore, “if learner discourse can be shown to have special properties, it is possible that these contribute to acquisition in some way” Ellis,
15
1997: 45. Just like caretakers modify the way they speak to children learning their first language, so do native speakers modify their speech when they are
communicating with learners. This phenomenon is evident in both input and interaction.
There was a study that has investigated that phenomenon called foreigner talk, “the language that native speakers use when addressing non-native speakers”
Ellis, 1997: 45. There are two types of foreigner talk that can be identified. First, it is called ungrammatical foreign talk. Ungrammatical foreign talk is
characterized by the deletion of certain grammatical features such as copula be, modal verbs and articles. In addition, it can be indicated by the using of base form
of verbs instead of the past tense form and the using of special constructions such as ‘no + verb’ Ellis, 1997: 45. Ungrammatical foreign talk’s features or forms
are normally the same as those in the learners’ L1. The second type is grammatical foreigner talk. In this type, it can be
acknowledged as a variety of modification of native speakers’ talk to other native speakers. First, it is conveyed at slower rate. Second, the input is simplified by
using shorter sentences, avoiding the use of subordinate clauses, and omitting complex grammatical forms. Third, it uses the basic forms by using a full forms
rather than the contracted one. The last type of modifications is that it sometimes involves the lengthening of phrases to make the meaning clearer.
Furthermore, according to Krashen’s 1993 input hypothesis as cited in Ellis 1997 second language acquisition happens when a learner comprehends
input which contains grammatical forms. “Success is achieved by using the
16
situational context to make massages clear and through the kinds of input modifications found in foreigner talk” Ellis, 1997: 85. Therefore, when L2
learners receive acceptable input of the target language, they would be able to produce the correct utterances.
B. Theoretical Framework
