MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS CODE MIXING IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXT OF AR RAUDLATUL HASANAH ISLAMIC BOARDING SCHOOL.
MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS’ CODE MIXING
IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXT OF AR-RAUDLATUL HASANAH ISLAMIC BOARDING SCHOOL
A Thesis
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By
RHOHMATILLAH
Registration Number: 8116111017
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2013
(2)
(3)
(4)
ABSTRACT
Rhohmatillah. Male and Female Students’ Code Mixing in Multilingual Context of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School. A Thesis. Applied English Linguistics Study Program. Postgraduate School. Unimed. 2013.
This research was aimed at comparing the use of code mixing in relation to the kinds of insertion and the pattern of code mixing used by male and female students of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School Medan. It is also intended to find out the different way in code mixing between male and female students related to linguistic aspects including the use of intensifier, tag question, hedge, and expletive. The data of the study were 63 male and female students’ utterances which contain Indonesian-English code mixing. The design of study was descriptive qualitative. The research findings showed that male and female students dominantly used the same kind of insertion in code mixing that is insertion of word, but male students tend to use noun or verb, while female students tend to use the word lah, kan and ya. Kinds of insertion used by male students are also more various than female students, in which male students used six kinds of insertion; insertion of word, phrase, insertion of word and phrase, clause, hybrid and reduplication, while female students only insertion of word and insertion of phrase. Male students code mixing was dominated by insertion pattern (56.66%) and alternation pattern (26.66%), while female students dominantly used insertion pattern (63.63%), alternation and congruent lexicalization pattern have the same frequency in use (18.18%). It was also found that female students used intensifier six times more often than male students, in which the frequency of female students is 60.6% while male students only 10 % and in the use of tag question female students is three times (18.18%) more often compared to male students (6.66%).
(5)
ABSTRAK
Rhohmatillah. Campur Kode antara Murid Laki-laki dan Perempuan dalam Konteks Multilingual di Pesantren Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah. Tesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris. Program Pascasarjana Universitas Negeri Medan. 2013.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan penggunaan campur kode dalam kaitannya dengan tipe penyisipan dan pola campur kode yang digunakan oleh siswa dan siswi Pesantren Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Medan. Hal ini juga dimaksudkan untuk mengetahui perbedaan antara murid laki-laki dan perempuan dalam campur code yang berhubungan dengan aspek linguistik termasuk penggunaan intensifier, tag question dan hedge. Data penelitian ini adalah ujaran 63 siswa laki-laki dan perempuan yang mengandung campur kode bahasa Indonesia-bahasa Inggris. Desain penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa siswa laki-laki dan perempuan umunya menggunakan jenis penyisipan yang sama yaitu penyisipan kata, tetapi siswa laki-laki cenderung menggunakan kata benda atau kata kerja, sedangkan siswa perempuan cenderung menggunakan kata lah, kan dan ya. Jenis penyisipan yang digunakan oleh siswa laki-laki juga lebih beragam daripada siswa perempuan, di mana siswa laki-laki menggunakan lima jenis penyisipan, penyisipan kata, frase, klausa, hibrida dan reduplikasi, sedangkan siswa perempuan hanya penyisipan kata dan frase. Campur code pada siswa laki-laki didominasi oleh pola insertion (56.66%) dan pola alternation (26.66%), sedangkan siswa perempuan dominan menggunakan pola insertion (63.63%), pola alternation dan congruent lexicalization frekuensi penggunaannya sama yaitu 18.18% . Selain itu, siswa perempuan enam kali lebih sering menggunakan intensifier dibandingkan siswa laki, di mana frekuensi murid perempuan aalah 60.6% sedangkan murid laki-laki hanya 10% dan pada penggunaan tag question, murid perempuan tiga kali (18.18%) lebih sering dibandingkan murid laki-laki (6.66%).
(6)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
At the earliest opportunity, the greatest attitude is praised be to Allah SWT, for without his blessings, it was impossible for the writer to finish this thesis. All the marvelous guidance was given to the writer in facing difficulties and uncertainties. Peace and blessings be upon our prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his companions, and his followers.
The writer would like to express her sincerest appreciation and deep gratitude to Prof. Amrin Saragih,M.A.,Ph.D as the first advisor for the support, guidance, helpful comments and valuables advices to finish this thesis. Her gratitude also goes to Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum as the second advisor for all her critical advicses and guidance to make this thesis better.
Likewise, the thanks are also expressed to those who helped the writer in finishing this thesis, among others:
1. Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, as the head of Applied English Linguistics Study Program.
2. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S, as the secretary of Applied English Linguistics Study Program.
3. All lecturers in Applied English Linguistics Study Program who have taught and educated the writer so she knows many things.
4. Drs. H. Rasyidin Bina, M.A, as the director of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School Medan who has allowed the writer to conduct this research in Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School and all teachers and
(7)
administration staffs of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School who have helped and supported the writer in finishing this research.
5. Her best gratitude to her beloved parents, H. Zulkaranain Nasution and Hj. Zaida, B.A, and her beloved brother Ihsan Badroni Nasution, S.Sy for their incredible supports, cares, loves, motivations and moral encouragements to finish this thesis.
6. Her great thank to her beloved husband, H. Mukhlis Mubarrok Dalimunthe, Lc, M.S.I and her beloved child, Waiz Dhiya Al-Haq Dalimunthe who always give their times to finish this thesis. Thank you for your support, your loves, your patient and your big involvement in doing the research so that the writer can finish this thesis.
7. Her friends in Applied English Linguistics whose names are cannot be mentioned one by one. Thank you for being my friends in happiness and sadness.
Finally, the writer deeply convinced that her thesis is still far from being perfect. To make this thesis better, valuable and constructive critics are really needed. The writer also hopes that this thesis will be useful and worth reading for all.
Medan, May 21, 2013 The Writer
Rhohmatillah
(8)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……… i
Acknowledgement………... iii
Table of Contents………. v
List of Tables………. viii
List of Appendices……… ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Study……...………... 1
1.2 The Problems of the Study…...………... 6
1.3 The Objectives of Study………..……… 6
1.4 The Scope of Study..………. 6
1.5 The Significances of Study………..……. 7
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. Code Mixing…….………..………...…. 8
2.1. 1 Definition of Code Mixing ...……….. 8
2.1.2 The Process of Code Mixing ………... 10
2.1.3 Patterns of Code Mixing…..………. 12
2.1.4 Kinds of Insertion in Code Mixing………... 14
2.1.5 Reasons of Applying Code Mixing……….. 16
2.1.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Applying Code Mixing... 18
(9)
2.2 Sex and Gender…..…...………. 21
2.2.1 Definition of Sex and Gender………... 21
2.2.2 Sexist Language versus Gender Language……… 23
2.2.3 Gender Differences in Language Use………... 25
2.2.4 The Factors Contributed to Gender Differences in Language Use………. 31
2.3 Bilingualism and Multilingualism………. 33
2.3.1 The Nature of Bilingualism and Multilingualism…………... 33
2.3.2 The Causes of Bilingualism and Multilingualism………… 33
2.4 Conceptual Framework……….. 36
2.5 Relevant Studies……… 39
2.6 The Profile of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School…….... 40
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research Design…………..……….. 44
3.2 Data and Data Sources.……….. 44
3.3 The Instrument of Data Collection………... 45
3.4 Techniques of Data Collection…………..……… 46
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ………... 46
(10)
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Description of the Data…..……….. 49
4.2 Data Analysis………...……….. 49
4.2.1 Kinds of Insertion Used by Male and Female Students in Code Mixing……… 50
4.2.2 The Patterns of Code Mixing Used by Male and Female Students………... 68
4.2.3 The Different Ways of Using Code Mixing between Male and Female Students………. 73
4.3 Findings……… 78
4.4 Discussions………... 80
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusion………. 82
5.2 Suggestion………. 83
REFERENCES………. .. 84
(11)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1 Male and Female Differences in Language Use……….. 29 Table 4.1 Kinds of insertion used by male students in code mixing……... 60 Table 4.2 Kinds of insertion used by female students in
code mixing………. 67 Table 4.3 Kinds of insertion used by male and female students
in code mixing………. 68 Table 6 The pattern of code mixing used by male students………. 71 Table 7 The pattern of code mixing used by female students………….. 73 Table 8 The pattern of code mixing used by male and female students.... 74 Table 9 Linguistic aspects usually used by male in code mixing……….. 76 Table 10 Linguistic aspects usually used by female in code mixing……... 78 Table 11 Linguistic aspects used by male and female students in
(12)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1. The Data of Students’ Code Mixed Utterances………. 89 Appendix 2. Transcript of Students’ Conversations……… 93 Appendix 3. Reporting Paper of Language Trespasser of Class XI B and
(13)
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of Study
Most of Islamic boarding schools in Indonesia require their students to live in the dormitory, including in Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School. In this Islamic boarding school, male and female students are located in a separated location. Therefore, almost all their conversations are conducted among their friends with the same sex. In such condition the possibility of male and female differences in language use might be higher since they just interact with their friends with the same sex in most of their times. So, it might be easier to find male and female differences in language use in such situation.
In addition, the students of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic boarding school must use English or Arabic in their daily conversation, unless they will get punishment if they speak in other languages such as Indonesian language or vernacular. The use of English or Arabic in this school is conducted by dividing the use of English in one week and Arabic will be used in another week. So, the students have English week in which they must speak English in this week, and they may not speak in other languages including Arabic, and they also have
(14)
2
Arabic week in which they must speak Arabic in this week, and they may not speak in other languages including English.
However, since English in Indonesia is a foreign language, it is possible that the students code mix English with their first or second language -such as Indonesian language, Bataknese, Malay, Acehnese, Javanese, Minang Language, or Bugenese- when they are speaking in English. For instance, I think the food this morning is not delicious, ya kan? Another example is, Wong his father kan work in this boarding school. Besides, it is also possible that the students code mix Arabic while they are speaking in English, for instance, Do you have
tho’am?
Code mixing has become socially and communicatively essential. It helps us in developing and improving relationships and also enables us to adapt to any environment we are in. However, in foreign or second language learning, the use of code mixing might have a long term negative effect to the users of code mixing in learning the target language (Rebecca, 2008:4). First, code mixing may lead to loss of fluency in the target language. Second, demotivation in learning English as the students use code mixing in most of their study years. Third, it might affect the solidarity and sense of belonging among students especially between those who are very proficient in English and those who are less proficient in English.
Therefore, in order to ensure that the students will always speak English or Arabic correctly in their daily communication, then Language Advicory
(15)
3
Council of this Islamic boarding school chose some students to be a language spy whose duty is to be a spy for the students who do not speak English or Arabic and then they give the name of the students who do not speak English or Arabic, along with the utterances they have uttered, to the Language Advicory Council of this Islamic boarding school. Later, Language Advicory Council will give punishment for those who do not speak English or Arabic and the punishment is depended on the frequency of using incorrect English or Arabic.
Hence it will be more interesting and significant if we relate the phenomena of male and female differences in language use with the phenomena of code mixing in students’ daily conversation rather than just studying about male and female students’ differences in language use.
A multitude of studies on language and gender have been devoted to identify and explain the differences in language use of men and women (Franch, 2003: 188). Most of the studies of gender and language have aimed at formulating generalizations for gender-based linguistic differences at a global view of language. Many linguists have found male and female’s differences in language use. The most well known linguists who have theories on gender differences in language use are Lakoff (1973) and Tannen (1990). They found that man and woman have differences in language use, but Lakoff found the differences in lexicon, grammar, and also the topic of speaking, while Tannen found the differences between man and woman language in conversation styles. Besides these two linguists, many researchers have also conducted the research
(16)
4
on language and gender, for example Norman (2006) and Pan (2011). Norman (2006) tried to find out the factors contribute to male and female differences in English language, while Pan (2011) found out the features of female language in English which is used by Chinese women.
However, in recent years, some researchers have turned away from the quest for a universal interpretation for gender-based linguistic differences, and suggested that more attention should be paid to the social constructions of gender which may take different forms across cultures and through time. Some researchers have tried to relate gender differences to the issues of sociolinguistics, especially code mixing and code switching. The chance of using code mixing are increased recently due to the emergence of globalization era in which the chances of people from different cultures and speaking different languages interact with each other are easily happen today.
Some researchers found out the difference frequency of using code mixing or code switching by male and female. However only few of them tried to relate the phenomena of code mixing or code switching to the theory of male and female’s differences in language use. For example, Wong (2006) had conducted the research about differences in code mixing behavior between Hong Kong male and female. In this research, he tried to find out the different pattern of code mixing employed by male and female. However, this research did not relate the theory of code mixing to the theory of linguistic differences between male and female. Hence, it is very interesting and significant if we try to relate
(17)
5
these two theories, and then we can see if male and female’s differences in linguistic aspects at global view will be the same with male and female’s differences in linguistic aspects when they are doing code mixing.
In addition, the theory on male and female’s differences in language use is found in English native speaker. Hence, this theory might not the same with other languages since each language is influenced by different culture. Besides, male and female’s differences in English language which are found in non native English might be different from those of the native English speaker one, since non native English speakers might be influenced by their own culture.
Further, this study is aimed at analyzing male and female’s differences when they mix Indonesian language into English utterances. This study will analyze linguistic aspects of Indonesian language which are inserted into English utterance based on male and female’s differences in linguistic aspects found in native English speaker. So, this study will find out the similarities and differences between male and female’s differences in language use when they are doing English-Indonesian code mixing.
Based on the phenomena explained above, the writer is intended to investigate in depth male and female’s code mixing among students of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School. Having conducting this research, the writer expected that it can help the teacher to overcome the problem of code mixing used by male and female’s students in their daily conversation by considering male and female’s differences in English-Indonesian code mixing
(18)
6
related to the linguistic aspects, kinds of insertion in code mixing and different pattern of code mixing being used as the guide to solve the problem of code
mixing.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of study explained above, the problems are formulated as the following.
1. What kinds of insertion are commonly code mixed by male and female students in their daily conversation?
2. What is the pattern of code mixing used by male and female students’ daily conversation?
3. What Indonesian linguistic aspects are dominantly used by male and female students in English-Indonesian code mixing?
1.3 The Objectives of Study
In line with the problems of the study, the research objectives are.
1. to describe kinds of insertion which are commonly code mixed by male and female students in their daily conversation,
2. to derive the pattern of code mixing used in male and female students’ daily conversation and
3. to elaborate linguistic aspects of Indonesian language which are dominantly used by male and female students in English-Indonesian code mixing.
(19)
7
1.4 The Scope of Study
Code mixing is divided into two kinds, inner code mixing which refers to a mixing from the original language with all the variants (standard- nonstandard) and outer code mixing which refers to a mixing from another language (foreign language).
This study will focus only on the outer code mixing which include English-Indonesian code mixing. Furthermore, the writer will analyze the dominant kinds of insertion in code mixing, the pattern of code mixing and also the differences of Indonesian linguistic features related to intensifier, tag question, lexical hedge, and expletive which are used in English-Indonesian code mixing by male and female students of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School in daily conversation.
1.5 The Significances of Study
The findings of study are expected to be beneficial and give contributions theoretically and practically. Theoretically, the findings of the study are expected to be additional resources for lecturers in teaching sociolinguistics, especially on gender differences in the use of code mixing.
Practically, it is expected that the findings are useful to be the guides for Language Advisory Council of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic Boarding School Medan to overcome the problem of code mixing found in male and female
(20)
8
students’ daily conversation. Besides, the findings are expected to be the guides for those who are interested in language borrowing and gender differences in language use especially in gender differences in code mixing.
(21)
83
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
From the data analysis and findings we can see that male and female’s code mixing in the case of English-Indonesian code mixing are different in some ways. First, although male and female students tended to use the same kind of insertion that is insertion of word, but the category of word used is different in which male students tend to use noun, verb or conjunction, while female students tend to use intensifier or tag question like lah, kan and ya.
In the case of pattern of code mixing, although the most dominant pattern which is used by male and female students is the same, that is insertion pattern, but the next dominant patterns are different in which male dominantly used alternation pattern while female students have the same frequency in the use of alternation and congruent lexicalization pattern.
Finally, female students tend to use more intensifier and tag question of Indonesian language in English-Indonesian code mixing compared to male students. In case of lexical hedge, female students also tended to use it more than male students, but they preferred to use it in English. Male students also tended to use crude expletives in Indonesian language. Therefore, the features of male and female language in English is the same with the features of male and female language in English-Indonesian code
(22)
84
mixing in relation to the use of intensifier and tag question. While in the use of hedges, female students’ of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic boarding school tended to use it in English.
5.2 Suggestions
In line with the conclusions drawn, it is suggested that:
1. The lecturers or teachers should teach or tell the students some English expressions for daily speaking, so the students know the correct way to express their ideas in English for daily speaking.
2. The lecturers and teachers should try to speak English correctly when in some occasion they meet their students outside of classroom, so that the students know and motivated to use correct English even for their daily communication.
3. The students must try to use English correctly in their daily communication since it will also affect their ability in English class. The writer expects that they can avoid the use of code mixing when speaking in English even it is just a small linguistic aspects like the word lah or kan since we can see from the findings that it can give a big negative impact to their ability in English.
(23)
85
REFERENCES
Ajibola, Micheal. 2011. Code Mixing as A Sociolinguistic Medium in Some Selected
Songs in the Nigerian Music Industry. University of Ilorin.
Almansour, Nasser. 2002. Bilingualism and the Need for Early EFL Education in the
Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaI. Riyadh: King Saud University.
American Psychological Association 2011. Definition of Terms: Sex, Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation. The Guidelines for Psychological Practice with
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients.
Ayeomony, M.O. 2006. Code-Switching and Code-Mixing: Style of Language Use in Childhood in Yoruba Speech Community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, vol. 15, No. 1: 90–99.
Beardsmore, Baetens. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principle. London: Arrowsmith. Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. 1999. Language Mixing and Second Language
Acquisition: Some Issues and Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Bloomer, Aileen. 2005. Introducing Language in Use. New York: Routledge.
Brennan, Marry. 2005. Research Methods and Project Management, retrieved July 12, 2006, (mary.brennan@ncl.ac.uk)
Climate, C. 1997. Men and Women Talking: The Differential Use of Speech and
Language by Gender. Retrieved in December 14, 2006,
(http://www.google…/differentiallanguage.html+pronoun+use+men+women+differe nces&hl=e)
Corbert, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cyrstal, D. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esplen and Jolly. 2006. Gender and Sex: A Sample of Definitions. BRIDGE (gender and development) Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton
(24)
86
Franch, Patricia. 2003. Gender and Politeness: Spanish and British Undergraduates’
Perceptions of Appropriate Requests. University of Valencia
Ginting, Datulina. 2012. Code Mixing in Suara Anda Interactive Program on Metro
TV. Medan: State University of Medan.
Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. 1989. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, C. 1991. An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman. Holmes, J. 1993. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London, UK: Longman. Huffaker, David 2004. Gender Similarities And Differences In Online Identity And
Language Use Among Teenage Bloggers. Washington, DC.
Ida, Rebecca. 2008. Code Switching in Informal Interaction Among A Group of 4th
Year TESL Students Of UTM. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kachru, B. B. 1978. Toward Structuring Csode-Mixing: An Indian Perspective.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 16: 27-46.
Kim, Eunhee. 2006. Reasons and Motivations for Code-Mixing and Code-Switching, TESOL 5th semester Spring 2006 Issues in EFL Vol . 4 No. 1
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and Woman's Place. Language in Society, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45-80. Retrieved April 1990
Liu, Ping. 2006. Code Switching and Code Mixing. Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication
Malmkjaer, Kristen. 1991. The Linguistic Encyclopedia. London: Routledge
Maschler, Y. 1998. On the transition from code-switching to a mixed code. London: Routledge.
Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(25)
87
Nik, S. K. 1988. Sosiolinguistik Bahasa Melayu dan Pengajaran. Petaling Jaya: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd.
Norman, Rebecca. 2006. Gender Differences in Language and the Attitudes
Concerning Them. Mid Sweden University Department of Humanities.
Pan, Qi. 2011. On The Features of Female Language in English. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 1015-1018. Finland: Academy
Publisher.
Paula López Rúa. 2009. Code Mixing and Word-Formation as Sources of Humour:
Some Evidence from Alternative Music . Spain: University of Santiago de
Compostela.
Punch, Keith F. 2009. Introduction to Research Method in Education. Los Angeles: Sage.
Rabbani, Rida. 2012. Gender differences in Code Switching and Code Mixing in text
Message of Undergraduate Students. Rawalpindi: College of Liberal Arts and
Science.
Rucker, Michael. 2010. Nine Differences between the Male and Female Brain. Retrieved in August 13, 2010 (http://www.brainfitnessforlife.com/).
Sahid, Rahmat. 2011. Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif Model Miles Dan
Huberman. Pasca UMS.
Sert, Olcay. 2005. The Function of Code Mixing and Code Switching in ELT Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 8. Retrieved in August 2005 (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html)
Skiba, R. 1997. Code Switching as a Countenance of Language Interference. The
Internet TESL Journal. Vol. 3, No. 10. Retrieved in May
2000 (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html).
Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subekti, Rini. 2006. An Analysis of Indonesian-English Code-Mixing used in Tempo
Magazine. Medan: State University of Medan.
Stella, Monica and Isharyanti, N. 2009. Code Switching and Code Mixing In Internet Chat. Jalt Call Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3 Pages 67–78. Retrieved June 12, 2009 (http://ella.slis.indiana).
(26)
88
Sunderland, Jane. 2006. Language and Gender: An advanced Resource Book. Routledge: Taylor and Francis
Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation. London:Virago Press
Trudgill, P. 2000. Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin
Welsh , Louise & Kathleen O. Ryan. 2009. Gender and Communication. Chicago: Learning Seed.
Yee Ho, Judy Woon. 2007. Code Mixing: Linguistic form and Socio-Cultural Meaning. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture. Retrieved June 20, 2008. ISSN 1327-774X (www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/Journal/)
Yelkenac, Serap. 2007. Language and Sex Differences. University of Mersin. Retrieved in February, 2013 (http://www.lingate.8k.com/serap.htm).
(1)
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
From the data analysis and findings we can see that male and female’s code mixing in the case of English-Indonesian code mixing are different in some ways. First, although male and female students tended to use the same kind of insertion that is insertion of word, but the category of word used is different in which male students tend to use noun, verb or conjunction, while female students tend to use intensifier or tag question like lah, kan and ya.
In the case of pattern of code mixing, although the most dominant pattern which is used by male and female students is the same, that is insertion pattern, but the next dominant patterns are different in which male dominantly used alternation pattern while female students have the same frequency in the use of alternation and congruent lexicalization pattern.
Finally, female students tend to use more intensifier and tag question of Indonesian language in English-Indonesian code mixing compared to male students. In case of lexical hedge, female students also tended to use it more than male students, but they preferred to use it in English. Male students also tended to use crude expletives in Indonesian language. Therefore, the features of male and female language in English is the same with the features of male and female language in English-Indonesian code
(2)
mixing in relation to the use of intensifier and tag question. While in the use of hedges, female students’ of Ar-Raudlatul Hasanah Islamic boarding school tended to use it in English.
5.2 Suggestions
In line with the conclusions drawn, it is suggested that:
1. The lecturers or teachers should teach or tell the students some English expressions for daily speaking, so the students know the correct way to express their ideas in English for daily speaking.
2. The lecturers and teachers should try to speak English correctly when in some occasion they meet their students outside of classroom, so that the students know and motivated to use correct English even for their daily communication.
3. The students must try to use English correctly in their daily communication since it will also affect their ability in English class. The writer expects that they can avoid the use of code mixing when speaking in English even it is just a small linguistic aspects like the word lah or kan since we can see from the findings that it can give a big negative impact to their ability in English.
(3)
REFERENCES
Ajibola, Micheal. 2011. Code Mixing as A Sociolinguistic Medium in Some Selected Songs in the Nigerian Music Industry. University of Ilorin.
Almansour, Nasser. 2002. Bilingualism and the Need for Early EFL Education in the Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaI. Riyadh: King Saud University.
American Psychological Association 2011. Definition of Terms: Sex, Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation. The Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients.
Ayeomony, M.O. 2006. Code-Switching and Code-Mixing: Style of Language Use in Childhood in Yoruba Speech Community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, vol. 15, No. 1: 90–99.
Beardsmore, Baetens. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principle. London: Arrowsmith. Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. 1999. Language Mixing and Second Language Acquisition: Some Issues and Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bloomer, Aileen. 2005. Introducing Language in Use. New York: Routledge.
Brennan, Marry. 2005. Research Methods and Project Management, retrieved July 12, 2006, (mary.brennan@ncl.ac.uk)
Climate, C. 1997. Men and Women Talking: The Differential Use of Speech and
Language by Gender. Retrieved in December 14, 2006,
(http://www.google…/differentiallanguage.html+pronoun+use+men+women+differe nces&hl=e)
Corbert, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cyrstal, D. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esplen and Jolly. 2006. Gender and Sex: A Sample of Definitions. BRIDGE (gender and development) Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton Fasold, R. 1987. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
(4)
Franch, Patricia. 2003. Gender and Politeness: Spanish and British Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Appropriate Requests. University of Valencia
Ginting, Datulina. 2012. Code Mixing in Suara Anda Interactive Program on Metro TV. Medan: State University of Medan.
Hamers, J. F. & Blanc, M. H. A. 1989. Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, C. 1991. An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman. Holmes, J. 1993. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London, UK: Longman. Huffaker, David 2004. Gender Similarities And Differences In Online Identity And Language Use Among Teenage Bloggers. Washington, DC.
Ida, Rebecca. 2008. Code Switching in Informal Interaction Among A Group of 4th Year TESL Students Of UTM. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kachru, B. B. 1978. Toward Structuring Csode-Mixing: An Indian Perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 16: 27-46.
Kim, Eunhee. 2006. Reasons and Motivations for Code-Mixing and Code-Switching, TESOL 5th semester Spring 2006 Issues in EFL Vol . 4 No. 1
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and Woman's Place. Language in Society, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45-80. Retrieved April 1990
Liu, Ping. 2006. Code Switching and Code Mixing. Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication
Malmkjaer, Kristen. 1991. The Linguistic Encyclopedia. London: Routledge
Maschler, Y. 1998. On the transition from code-switching to a mixed code. London: Routledge.
Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nemati, Azedah and Jennifer Bayer. 2005. Gender Differences in the Use of Linguistic Forms in the Speech of Men and Women: A Comparative Study of Persian and English.
(5)
Nik, S. K. 1988. Sosiolinguistik Bahasa Melayu dan Pengajaran. Petaling Jaya: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd.
Norman, Rebecca. 2006. Gender Differences in Language and the Attitudes Concerning Them. Mid Sweden University Department of Humanities.
Pan, Qi. 2011. On The Features of Female Language in English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 1015-1018. Finland: Academy Publisher.
Paula López Rúa. 2009. Code Mixing and Word-Formation as Sources of Humour: Some Evidence from Alternative Music . Spain: University of Santiago de Compostela.
Punch, Keith F. 2009. Introduction to Research Method in Education. Los Angeles: Sage.
Rabbani, Rida. 2012. Gender differences in Code Switching and Code Mixing in text Message of Undergraduate Students. Rawalpindi: College of Liberal Arts and Science.
Rucker, Michael. 2010. Nine Differences between the Male and Female Brain. Retrieved in August 13, 2010 (http://www.brainfitnessforlife.com/).
Sahid, Rahmat. 2011. Analisis Data Penelitian Kualitatif Model Miles Dan Huberman. Pasca UMS.
Sert, Olcay. 2005. The Function of Code Mixing and Code Switching in ELT Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 8. Retrieved in August 2005 (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sert-CodeSwitching.html)
Skiba, R. 1997. Code Switching as a Countenance of Language Interference. The
Internet TESL Journal. Vol. 3, No. 10. Retrieved in May
2000 (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html).
Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subekti, Rini. 2006. An Analysis of Indonesian-English Code-Mixing used in Tempo Magazine. Medan: State University of Medan.
Stella, Monica and Isharyanti, N. 2009. Code Switching and Code Mixing In Internet Chat. Jalt Call Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3 Pages 67–78. Retrieved June 12, 2009 (http://ella.slis.indiana).
(6)
Sunderland, Jane. 2006. Language and Gender: An advanced Resource Book. Routledge: Taylor and Francis
Tannen, Deborah. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. London:Virago Press
Trudgill, P. 2000. Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin
Welsh , Louise & Kathleen O. Ryan. 2009. Gender and Communication. Chicago: Learning Seed.
Yee Ho, Judy Woon. 2007. Code Mixing: Linguistic form and Socio-Cultural Meaning. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture. Retrieved June 20, 2008. ISSN 1327-774X (www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/Journal/)
Yelkenac, Serap. 2007. Language and Sex Differences. University of Mersin. Retrieved in February, 2013 (http://www.lingate.8k.com/serap.htm).