T1__Full text Institutional Repository | Satya Wacana Christian University: Types and Reasons for Code Mixing in Group Discussions and Presentations INCCU Class T1 Full text

TYPES AND REASONS FOR CODE MIXING IN GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENTATIONS INCCU CLASS

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sarjana Pendidikan

Ifa Lusia Serevia 112011102

ENGLISH TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS UNIVERSITAS KRISTEN SATYA WACANA SALATIGA 2016

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2016. Ifa Lusia Serevia and Drs. Anton Wahyana, M.A.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the prior permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Language Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga.

Ifa Lusia Serevia:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First I would like to thank God for the miracles, glory and strength so that only with HIS blessing, I could finish this study. Especially, I would like to thank my beloved father, Handono Sucipto who always gives his support and always pray for me. To my mother and grandfather in heaven, thank you for your love, I still can feel your love and your presence although you are not here. Thanks to my beloved brother, Deon Adonia who always standing beside me whenever I need him, also to my oldest brother, Avi Algadri, thank you for your support and your advice. I am also very thankful to thesis supervisor Drs. Anton Wahyana, M.A and the examiner Maria Ch. Eko Setyarini, M.Hum for the advice, guidance, patience, and feedback so that I could finish my thesis. I am also thankful to my students‟ advisor, Maria Ch. Eko Setyarini, M.Hum who always understands my difficulties during my study in this university. I would also thank my best friends, Nining Setyowati and Melisa Anggraini who always give their support, prayer and even their precious time for me. Also, thank you for my boarding house friends, Agil, Dinna, Gelvi Jung, Yunita, and Eliana who always being there for me when I need them. Thanks to my close boyfriends, Faisal, Yosua, Ian, Eric H, Ryan who always make me laugh and of course always standing by my side when I need them. I would also thank all participants who help me provide the data I needed to finish this thesis. Finally, I am so grateful being a part of English Department Faculty and Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1 Rubric for Observation ........................................................................................ 15 Table 2 Percentage of each Types of Code Mixing ……………………………………...21

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1 Example of Insertion in Code Mixing ................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Example of Alternation in Code Mixing .............................................................. 6 Figure 3 Example of Congruent Lexicalization in Code Mixing ....................................... 6 Figure 4 Diagram of the Example of Insertion ................................................................. 18 Figure 5 Diagram of the Example of Alternation ............................................................. 19 Figure 6 Diagram of the Example of Congruent Lexicalization …………………………20

TYPES AND REASONS FOR CODE MIXING IN GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENTATIONS IN CCU CLASS

Ifa Lusia Serevia

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the types and the reasons for code-mixing used in Cross Cultural Understanding (CCU) class. The subject used in this study was students in CCU class. CCU was chosen because the students in this class are come from some different tribes such as Javanese, Chinese, and Sumbanese, so that there will be different culture between them. There was a big chance for them to mix their language when there are group discussions because they need to adapt themselves with their own culture they had. To figure out the percentage of the types of code mixing, this study used quantitative research method. Then, to figure out the reasons for code mixing, this study used qualitative research method. The data were collected through observation and interviews.The observation was done by taking some videos of the activities in the class. The data from the observation were analysed to classifythe types of code mixing accor ding to Muysken‟s theory (2000), while the transcription of the interviews were analysed to determine the reasons for code mixing according to Hoffman‟s theory (1991). From this study, the researcher found 23 data from the observation. Out of 23 data, 6 data (26.08%) were classified as insertion, 6 data (26.08%) were classified as alternation, only

4 data (17.40%) were classified as congruent lexicalization, and 7 data (30.43%) can‟t be classified into the three categories. For the reasons for code mixing, only four out of ten reasons were proved by the data in this study namely, talking about particular topic, repetition used for clarification, because of lexical need, and for quoting somebody else.

Key Words: Codemixing, Sociolinguistics

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, there are many people who are competent in two or more languages because they need to communicate with other people (Pamungkas, 2008). When people talk to others, they need to decide what language that they are going to use because sometimes when they talk to different people from different countries or origins they usually also needs to use different languages. This situation is called code Nowadays, there are many people who are competent in two or more languages because they need to communicate with other people (Pamungkas, 2008). When people talk to others, they need to decide what language that they are going to use because sometimes when they talk to different people from different countries or origins they usually also needs to use different languages. This situation is called code

Code mixing already has become a familiar research topic among English Department students in Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. In the previous study, there is

a discussion about an analysis of code mixing of LOOKS and CHIC magazines conducted by Dwijayanti (2012). The study is conducted to find out the types and the reasons for code mixing and also the influence of age towards code mixing; it focuses on code mixing in written context. Another study is conducted by Dwiningsih (2011) whichdiscussesthe reasons for both code mixing and code switching in COSMOGIRL magazines. Another study of code mixing and code switching is also conducted by Aulia (2009). She analysed the use of code mixing from a book entitle d „Jakarta Undercover: Sex „n The City‟. The study also discusses about the types of code mixing and the reasons for code mixing used in Jakarta Un dercover: Sex „n The City.Another previous study that only focus in written context is conducted by Isharyanti (2009) which discusses about code switching and code mixing in internet chatting.

This study is different from the previous studies done byDwijayanti (2012), Aulia (2009), and Dwiningsih (2011) which focusonly in written contexts. This study uses This study is different from the previous studies done byDwijayanti (2012), Aulia (2009), and Dwiningsih (2011) which focusonly in written contexts. This study uses

In this present study, the researcher is curious to find out the types and the reasons for code mixing in spoken context used by students in Cross Cultural Understanding class. During the class there are group works and presentations that let them spontaneously mix their languages in English and Indonesian.

Thus, the study aims to answer this two research questions:

1. What are the types of code mixing that were used by students in their presentations and group discussions in Cross Cultural Understanding course?

2. What are the reasons for code mixing used by students in their presentations and group discussions in Cross Cultural Understanding course?

The results of this research will make the readers know the types of code mixing and also as an additional source or to provide an additional overview of code mixing The results of this research will make the readers know the types of code mixing and also as an additional source or to provide an additional overview of code mixing

LITERATURE REVIEW

Language is important for human life. The relationship amongpeople always emerges through language and it means that they are also connected through language. The process of expressing ideas orfeelings and also giving information is called communication (Hornby, 1995). People from different origins usually have different codes/languages when they communicate, if there are more than one code it will cause code mixing and code switching in their language use when there is communication between them.

Code is defined as variety of languages for example the dialect of one language or the accent of one particular language (Wardaugh, 1990). When a person switches codes, it means that s/he has to decide which words or phrases to be used (Holmes, 2001:42). Code switching occurs when a personswitches one language with another language. However, code switching is different from code mixing. Code mixing is more about two different languages that appear in one sentence. Muysken (2000) defines code-mixing as cases where two languages appear in one sentence which share lexical items and grammatical features from those two languages.There are three types of code mixing according to Muysken (2000): insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalization. Kim (2006) says that insertion is defined as insertion of words or phrases from one language Code is defined as variety of languages for example the dialect of one language or the accent of one particular language (Wardaugh, 1990). When a person switches codes, it means that s/he has to decide which words or phrases to be used (Holmes, 2001:42). Code switching occurs when a personswitches one language with another language. However, code switching is different from code mixing. Code mixing is more about two different languages that appear in one sentence. Muysken (2000) defines code-mixing as cases where two languages appear in one sentence which share lexical items and grammatical features from those two languages.There are three types of code mixing according to Muysken (2000): insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalization. Kim (2006) says that insertion is defined as insertion of words or phrases from one language

Figure 1. Example of insertion in code mixing

…a… …b… …a… Muysken (2000, p.7) In figure 1, “a” represents the phrases or words of the first language and “b” represents

the phrases or words of the second language that are inserted by the speaker.

Another type of code mixing is alternation. The process of alternation is defined as the process of one structure from one language that is placed into another structure from another language that happens in one sentence. In alternation, there are two languages in the same grammatical and lexical level that appear in one sentence (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Example of alternation in code mixing

…a…

…b…

Muysken (2000, p.7)

In figure 2, A & B represent structures of the two languages in the utterances produced by the speakers.

The third type is congruent lexicalization. Congruent lexicalization occurs when two languages that share grammatical structure appear in one sentence.According to Muysken (2000), congruent lexicalization may be associated with migrant groups, dialect/standard and bilingual speakers (see figure 3).

Figure 3. Example of congruent lexicalization in code mixing

A/B

….a… …b… …c… …d…

Muysken (2000, p.7)

Furthermore, there is also another theory from another expert that classifies the types of code mixing into three categories. Those three types of code mixing are classified based on the area where the language is used according to Hoffman (1991). Those three categories namely, intra-sentential code mixing, intra-lexical code mixing and code mixing involving change of pronunciation. The process of Intra-sentential code mixing happens within a phrase, a clause or a sentence boundary (Setya, 2016). The second type is intra-lexical code mixing. The process of code mixing in this type occurs within a word boundary (Setya, 2016). The last type is code mixing involving a change of pronunciation. The process of this type of code mixing occurs at the phonological level. But, for the purpose of this study, the researcher employs Muysken‟s theorydescribed above. The Hoffman (1991) theory about the types of code mixing is only as the additional theory of reference in this study.

In addition, Hoffman (1991) also stated about ten reasons of why people mix their language. Those are, talking about particular topic, being emphatic to express solidarity, Interjection (inserting sentence and connectors), repetition used for clarification, expressing group identity, intention of clarifying the speech content for interlocutor, because of real lexical need, quoting somebody else, to soften or strengthen command or request, to exclude other people when a comment is intended for only a limited audience. The meaning of each reason was described below:

Talking about particular topic

Sometimes we often change our language when we talks with someone. A speaker feels free and to express his/her emotional feelings in his/her everyday language so that it is more comfortable for them.

Being emphatic to express solidarity

When someone suddenly wants to emphatic about something, s/he will switch from his second language to his/her first language. On the other hand, s/he switches from his/her second language to his/her first language because s/he feels more comfortable to be emphatic in his/her first language rather that his/her second language.

Interjection (inserting sentence and connectors)

Interjection is words, which are inserted as a sentence to give surprise, emotion, to express feeling, ideas, or to gain attention. Code switching and Code mixing among bilingual or multilingual people can sometimes use interjection or sentence connector.

Repetition used for clarification

When a bilingual or multilingual person wants to clarify something, it will be understood better by the listener if s/he can use both of the language (codes) that s/he masters to say the same message.

Expressing group identity

Code switching and code mixing can also be used to express group identity. The way of communication of academic people in their disciplinary groupings, are obviously Code switching and code mixing can also be used to express group identity. The way of communication of academic people in their disciplinary groupings, are obviously

Intention of clarifying the speech content for interlocutor

When bilingual or multilingual person talks to another person who is also bilingual / multilingual, there will be lot of code switching and code mixing occurs.That person usually uses intention to make the content of his speech can be understood by the listener.

Because of real lexical need

The most common reason for bilingual / multilingual person switch or mixing their language is due to the lack of vocabulary. When an Indonesian has a word that is lacking in English, s/he will find it easier to say it in Indonesian.

Quoting somebody else

Sometimes, a speaker switches and mixes the language to quote a famous expression, proverb, or saying of some well-known figures. The speaker just involves the wordsto claim the quoted person said by giving quotation marks. Those famous sayings can be quoted in their original language.

To soften or strengthen command or request

Shifting languages can also function as a request or command. However, code mixing and code switching can also strengthen a command so thatit will be more powerful for the speaker because he can use a language that everybody cannot.

To exclude other people when a comment is intended for only a limited audience

Sometimes people want to communicate only to certain people. To avoid the other peoplefor knowing their communication, they may try to exclude those people by switching or mixing the language that nobody know.

To find out the types of code mixing in this study, the researcher uses Muysken‟s (2000) theory. While for the reasons for code mixing, the researcher uses Hoffma n‟s (1991) theory.

Recent studies of code mixing are conducted by Isharyanti (2009), Dwijayanti (2012), and Aulia (2009). In the previous study of Isharyanti (2009), the subjectsare conversations in internet chatting from 12 male participants.From 12 participants, six participants were from an Indonesian background and six participants were from a Latin American background. There are 20 data of conversations in Indonesian language and 20 data in Spanish that were examined. After being counted, there are 1935 lines (9113 words) of chatting exchanges from Spanish speaking participants and 1035 lines (4119 words) of chatting exchanges from Indonesian speaking participants. Actually, the most important thing of this study is about the result of the most frequent code mixing category that was occur in the chatting. There are 35 data from Spanish speaking participants. Out of 35 data identified, 32(92%) data correspond to the category of insertion, 3(8%) correspond to the category of alternation, and none of the data fulfil the category of congruent lexicalization. While from 66 data from Indonesian speaking participants, 53(83%) data correspond to the category of insertion, 6(9%) data correspond to the category of alternation, and 5(8%) data correspond to the category of congruent Recent studies of code mixing are conducted by Isharyanti (2009), Dwijayanti (2012), and Aulia (2009). In the previous study of Isharyanti (2009), the subjectsare conversations in internet chatting from 12 male participants.From 12 participants, six participants were from an Indonesian background and six participants were from a Latin American background. There are 20 data of conversations in Indonesian language and 20 data in Spanish that were examined. After being counted, there are 1935 lines (9113 words) of chatting exchanges from Spanish speaking participants and 1035 lines (4119 words) of chatting exchanges from Indonesian speaking participants. Actually, the most important thing of this study is about the result of the most frequent code mixing category that was occur in the chatting. There are 35 data from Spanish speaking participants. Out of 35 data identified, 32(92%) data correspond to the category of insertion, 3(8%) correspond to the category of alternation, and none of the data fulfil the category of congruent lexicalization. While from 66 data from Indonesian speaking participants, 53(83%) data correspond to the category of insertion, 6(9%) data correspond to the category of alternation, and 5(8%) data correspond to the category of congruent

Another researcher who conducted the study which uses similar theory is Dwijayanti (2012). The subjects of the study are readers‟ letterin LOOKS and CHIC magazines. In readers‟ letter of LOOKS magazines, it was found 107 analysed utterances. Out of 107 utterances, 63 utterances (58.9%) were insertion, 29 utterances (27.1%) were alternation and only 15 utterances (14%) were congruent lexicalization. From the result above, insertion appears to be the most frequent type of code mixing in LOOK magazine.

Meanwhile, in readers‟ letter of CHIC magazines, it was found 88 analysed utterances. Out of 88 utterances, 71 utterances (80.7%) were classified as insertion, 11 utterances

(12.5%) were classified as congruent lexicalization and only 6 utterances (6.8%) were categorized as alternation. T he most frequent type of code mixing occurred in readers‟ letter of CHIC magazine is also insertion.

Another research is done by Aulia (2009). The subject of the study is a book entitled „Jakarta Undercover: Sex „n The City‟. From the book, it was found 100 data of code mixing. Out of 100 data, 51 data (51%) were indicated as insertion, and then followed by alternation (29%) and congruent lexicalization (20%). Insertion also appears to be the most frequent type of code mixing in this study. The result is the same as the recent studies above.

From the previous studies above, the previous researchers found that insertion appears to be the most frequent category of code mixing that occurs in those studieswhich From the previous studies above, the previous researchers found that insertion appears to be the most frequent category of code mixing that occurs in those studieswhich

THE STUDY

This following section deals with context of the study describing the method of this research, the participants of this research, the research instruments, the procedure of doing this research, and also the data collection.

Context of the Study

The previous studies conducted by Dwijayanti (2012), Aulia (2009), Dwiningsih (2011) and Isharyanti (2009) focus only in written contexts. This study uses similar method like that of Dwijayanti (2012) and Aulia (2009) which employs Muysken‟s theory for the types of code mixing but this study is focuses only in spoken contexts.This study used descriptive qualitative method aiming at finding the types of code mixing that used by students in Cross Cultural Understanding class. Hence, this study would observe the classroom activities in which each of the activity will make students mix their language. Then, the observation data will be analysed to decide which types and which reasons of code mixing occur in the class. The setting of this research is in Cross Cultural Understanding class that were attended by students of English Literature study program. The researcherrecorded the activities in the class especially in group discussion activities and chose which recordings that were appropriated for the research and did interviews on some students who were able to tell their reasons why they mix their language.

The Participants

The subjects of this research are students in Cross Cultural Understanding class because the students in this class are come from some different tribes and origins, and also because of that there will be different culture between them. So that if there were some discussion activities in this class, there was a big chance for them to mix their language because they need to adapt themselves with their own culture they had.In Cross Cultural Understanding class, there are about 10 students. The researcher recorded their activities especially in their group discussions and presentations and then transcribes the recordings to classify the types of code mixing that used by the students. This research employs English Literature students (batch of 2014).

Research Instruments

In this study, the first instrument to find the most frequent type of code mixing occurred in the class is Muysken‟s categorization of code mixing. In Muysken‟s theory,

there are three types of code mixing namely insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalization.

The second instrument to analyse the reasons for code mixing is Hoffman‟s theory. There are ten reasons for code mixing according to Hoffman (1991). In order to analyse the reasons of the participants in using code mixing, the researcher needs to do interviews to some of them. The questions are:

1. When was the first time you learned English?

2. What were your difficulties when you first learned English?

3. Do you often mix your English with your mother language?

4. I have transcribed the recordings of your group discussions and presentations. In the recordings you mixed your English with Indonesian language. What are your reasons for mixing your English with your Indonesian language?

Research Procedure

This research followed the procedure of study as follows. The researcher first asked permission from the lecture of the class to observe the class. While observing the class, the researcher took some videos or recorded the presentations and group discussions. There are two types of observation: participant observation and non- participant observation. In this observationthe researcher used non-participant observation because the researcher participated minimally in the research setting. By using this kind of observation, the researcher would be more focused on what was happening and also could be able to observe fully what all the participants were doing (Dornyei, 2007; McKay, 2006). If the researcher used participant observation, the researcher became a full member of the group that was being observed which might make theresearcher lose insight and focus on what was happening and just focused on the activities at hand (Dornyei, 2007; McKay, 2006). After taking some videos of the discussions, the researcher needs to transcribe the recordings to be able to identify which students that mixed their language. Then, the researcher interviewed two students related to the transcription of the recordings to be able to know the reasons why they mixed their language. After that, the data were analysed by using the description of code mixing This research followed the procedure of study as follows. The researcher first asked permission from the lecture of the class to observe the class. While observing the class, the researcher took some videos or recorded the presentations and group discussions. There are two types of observation: participant observation and non- participant observation. In this observationthe researcher used non-participant observation because the researcher participated minimally in the research setting. By using this kind of observation, the researcher would be more focused on what was happening and also could be able to observe fully what all the participants were doing (Dornyei, 2007; McKay, 2006). If the researcher used participant observation, the researcher became a full member of the group that was being observed which might make theresearcher lose insight and focus on what was happening and just focused on the activities at hand (Dornyei, 2007; McKay, 2006). After taking some videos of the discussions, the researcher needs to transcribe the recordings to be able to identify which students that mixed their language. Then, the researcher interviewed two students related to the transcription of the recordings to be able to know the reasons why they mixed their language. After that, the data were analysed by using the description of code mixing

Rubric of observation is needed to guide the researcher to do an observation. Rubric also makes the observation easier because it is for the guide of observation.The result will be more detail especially in terms of the particular criteria. Table 1 shows the rubric of observation.

Table 1. Rubric for observation (Zacharias, 2013)

Criteria

Description

Group discussion and presentation To make the opportunity for the students activity

to mix their language

Strategies of Seating To make sure that the observer is possible to view the entire classroom so that it will

be easier to observe the class Equipment

Digital Camera, mobile phone to take some video of the group discussion and presentation activities

Data Collection

The data of this research were taken from the observation in Cross Cultural Understanding class. The things that the researcher did first are observing and recording the activities in the class such as the presentations and group discussions. The researcher recorded the presentations andgroup discussions as many as possible. In the end of the The data of this research were taken from the observation in Cross Cultural Understanding class. The things that the researcher did first are observing and recording the activities in the class such as the presentations and group discussions. The researcher recorded the presentations andgroup discussions as many as possible. In the end of the

Data Analysis

The data from the observation are divided into a unit of analysis of sentences. Each sentence was analysed using Muysken‟s categorization for insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalization.

To analyse the data, the researcher has to classify the data into which type of code mixing based on Muysken‟s theory. After the data were classified, the researcher used the technique of percentage employs the formula of Sudjana (1996, in Setya, 2016).

The Formula: P =_f_× 100% n

P in the formula stands as the percentage of the code mixing used. Then, f is the total of the frequency of code mixing (insertion, alternation, or congruent lexicalization). While n is the total sentences of code mixing from the observation. The total of the frequency of code mixing divided by the total sentences of code mixing, then the result will be timed by 100% and the final result will be percentage (P) of the code mixing used in Cross Cultural Understanding class.

Then the researcher interviewed two students in order to know their reasons for mixing their language. The reasons for code mixing were analysed from the transcription of the interview with two subjects of the interviewees.

DISCUSSION

The following section deals with the discussion of the data collected based on each type of code mixing according to Muysken (2000) and the ten reasons for code mixing according to Hoffman (1991).There are total of 23 data that were collected by the researcher but only 16 (69.57%) data that can be classified into the three types of code mixing. The remaining data (30.43 %) can‟t be classified.

The first part discuss about the analysis of the data collected based on the theory of Muysken (2000) about the types of code mixing namely insertion, alternation and congruent lexicalization. The first type isinsertion. Insertion is defined as phrases or words from another language that placed in a sentence with another language. The following sentences are examples of insertion data found during the observation:

1. If you are the penyelenggara acara , you should now where the equipment should be placed.

2. In my opinion, long term orientation is something that they are really believe about something that terjadi sangat lampau and this culture has very long term orientation.

(see appendix 2 for complete data) To make it easier to understand, the researcher gives the following diagram based

on the example above. The researcher shows the diagram of example number 1:

Figure 4. Diagram of the example of insertion

English Indonesian language English

For example if you are the penyelenggara acara you should now where the equipment should be placed.

The bold italic phrases are in Indonesian words that are placed in the middle of the English sentences. In the diagram above, the element of another language, the Indonesian phrase ’penyelenggara acara’was placed within English sentence. It can be concluded that the definition of insertion by Muysken (2000) isproved bythe data above. From 23 data, 6 (26.08%) data indicate the category of insertion.

The second type is alternation. The process of alternation is defined as the process of two structure in different language that is incorporated as one sentence (Muysken, 2000). Muysken (2000) also view the context of code mixing in terms of the compatibility of the language. The following sentences were examples of alternation found during the observation:

1. On the side of the room there is word of „no smoking room‟ or‘ruangan bebas rokok’ .

2. What makes it different is the existence of the deposit or in Indonesia we can say tempat penitipan barang .

(see appendix 2 for complete data) The following diagram is the example of alternation. The researcher shows the

diagram of example number 2:

Figure 5. Diagram of the example of alternation

English

Indonesian Language

What makes it different is the

tempat penitipan barang

existence of the deposit or in

Indonesia we can say

The bold italic phrase is in Indonesianlanguage that is placed in the end of the

English sentences. Based on the diagram above, the Indonesian phrase ‘tempat penitipan

barang’ altered the rest of the English language. The percentage of this type was the same with the percentage of the previous type. From 23 data, 6 (26.08%) data indicate the category of alternation, it means that this type of code mixing often used by the students in this course.

The third type is congruent lexicalization. This type is defined as the variation of two languages in one sentence that shares grammatical structure. The following sentences were examples of congruent lexicalization found during the observation:

1. We are playing badminton, but then our shuttlecock nyangkut on the tree and

I said, “Are we finished the game?” and then he went to mengambil a basketball and then we melempari the tree together with the basketball until the shuttlecock fall down.

2. The workers have to call the manager Bapak or Ibu and I think I see power distance in this case.

(see appendix 2 for complete data) The following diagram is the example of congruent lexicalization. The researcher

shows the diagram of example number 2:

Figure 6. Diagram of the example of congruent lexicalization

English/Indonesian Language

The workers have to

or ibu and I think I call the manager

bapak

see the power distance see the power distance

To conclude this section, the types of code mixing are presented in the table below:

Table 2. Frequency and percentage types of code mixing

Number Types of Code-Mixing

3 Congruent Lexicalization

4 Not classified

There are total 23 data that were collected by the researcher but only 16 data that can be classified into the three types of code mixing. After the data are analysed, it was found that there are two types of code mixing that have the same quantity which are insertion and alternation, and the lowest quantity was congruent lexicalization type.

From 23 data, 6 data found in Cross Cultural Understanding class (26.08%) indicatethe category of insertion, 6 (26.08%) data indicate the category of alternation and

4 (17.40%) data fulfil the category of congruent lexicalization, and 7 (30.43%) data were can‟t be classified.They often use insertion and alternation because perhaps this type of

code mixing was the easiest and fastest way to use so that they can spontaneously use this type of code mixing. Regarding the remaining data that can‟t be classified into the three types of code mixing, the researcher try to look for another theory of code mixing from another references.

There is another theory of code mixing according to Hoffman (1991). Hoffman (1991) stated that there are three types of code mixing namely intra sentential code mixing, intra lexical code mixing and code mixing involving a change of pronunciation. The meaning of those three types of code mixing was already explained above. But this theory is not matched with those 7 data. Some of the utterances are not in the form of full sentences, they are just in the form of phrases or words. Other data can‟t be classified because the words or phrases used to mix the language are names ofa place in Indonesian language so that the speakers can‟t translate it into English. Those data that can‟t be

classified need to be analysed deeper using another theory of code mixing. The researcher of this study is only focus on the theory of Muysken (2000) for the types of code mixing and the theory of Hoffman (1991) for the reasons for code mixing. The complete set of the data is available in Appendix 2.

This result is different from the previous studies conducted by Dwijayanti (2012), Aulia (2009),and Isharyanti (2009) which has the same result. The most frequent type of This result is different from the previous studies conducted by Dwijayanti (2012), Aulia (2009),and Isharyanti (2009) which has the same result. The most frequent type of

This part discusses the reasons for code mixing.In order to know the reasons for code mixing that happened in this class, the researcher did some interviews to some students. The interviews have been done in different time so that the answers were also different. The questions of the interviews were about the reasons why they mixed their language in the class. Before the researcher asks about the reasons for code mixing, there are some warm up phase questionsthat have to be asked first.

The first question is about when was the first time they learn English. First subject told that she had already started to learn English since preschool but the course more developed when she was in elementary school until Senior high school. In the other hand the second subject told that she also started to learn English from the first grade of elementary school but in informal course, because at that time English was not available The first question is about when was the first time they learn English. First subject told that she had already started to learn English since preschool but the course more developed when she was in elementary school until Senior high school. In the other hand the second subject told that she also started to learn English from the first grade of elementary school but in informal course, because at that time English was not available

The third question is about how often they mixed their language. First subject said that she often mix her language usually when she is nervous or she has a word that is lacking in English she spontaneously mix her language with Indonesian language. Besides, the second subject said that she had rarely doing code mixing because the lecture always helped her to correct her speech when she mixed her language.

Then, finally after all the warm up phase questions, the next question is about what are their reasons for mixing their English with Indonesian language. The researcher use the reasons for code mixing according to Hoffman (1991), there are ten reasons of why people mix their language.

The first subject answered that she sometimes mixed her language because it just happens spontaneously when she was nervous and do not know the word she want to say in English so that she just say it in Indonesian. The first subject also said that she often mixed her language to express her feeling for example when she is talking with her close friends sometimes she feels more comfortable to express her emotional feeling in The first subject answered that she sometimes mixed her language because it just happens spontaneously when she was nervous and do not know the word she want to say in English so that she just say it in Indonesian. The first subject also said that she often mixed her language to express her feeling for example when she is talking with her close friends sometimes she feels more comfortable to express her emotional feeling in

„real lexical needs‟happens when someone has a word that is lacking in English. In such situation, s/he will find it easier to say it in Indonesian or their mother language.

Then, the second subject has different reasons for this question. She said that she mixedher language for clarification because she thought maybe there were some students that had different perceptions and by doing code mixingit will be understood better by the listener. The second subject also said that she also mixed her language when she quotes an Indonesian proverbs or words from historical person.The researcher also concluded this answer as the reason of doing code mixing as the repetition used for clarification and quoting somebody else. The reason of using repetition for clarification happens when a person wants to clarify his speech so that there was no different perception about what s/he said. The switch of quoting proverb or quoting somebody else is just for the set of quotation marks because those famous expressions or proverbs can be quoted just in their original language.

From all those participants‟ answer, the researcher concluded that there are only four reasons of Hoffman (1991) theory that are matched with the reasons for code mixing

used by students in Cross Cultural Understanding class. Those four reasons are; talking about particular topic, repetition used for clarification, because of lexical need, and quoting somebody else. The researcher also asks about the remaining reasons of Hoffman ‟s theory to the interviewee. The first subject answer that she rarely mixed her language for those six reasons because she thought that those six reasons were not used by students in Cross Cultural Understanding class. Those four reasons are; talking about particular topic, repetition used for clarification, because of lexical need, and quoting somebody else. The researcher also asks about the remaining reasons of Hoffman ‟s theory to the interviewee. The first subject answer that she rarely mixed her language for those six reasons because she thought that those six reasons were not

that‟s why she said that those six remaining reasons were not familiar to her everyday life. The second subject said that maybe she was ever mixed her language for one or two

of those remaining reasons but it is not really as frequent as for another four reasons above.

Based on ten reasons for code mixing according to Hoffman (1991), only four reasons were proved by the data above. Those four reasons are; talking about particular topic, repetition used for clarification, because of lexical need, and for quoting somebody else. This result is different from the previous study conducted by Dwijayanti (2012). In the study, there are nine reasons out of ten reasons (omitting the reason for expressing group identity) are proved by LOOKS respondents. While CHIC respondents chose only eight out of ten reasons (omitting the reasons for repetition used for clarification and expressing group identity). Whereas in this study, the participants only chose four out of ten reasons for code mixing. It happens maybe because of the different context of this study with the study conducted by Dwijayanti (2012). In written context, it is not needed to use the reason for code mixing of using repetition for clarification because if the readers need clarification/better understanding, they just have to read it again by themselves. It is different from this study which is in spoken context. When the listeners need to get better understanding, the speaker needs to use repetition for clarification so that the explanation will be understood by the listeners.

CONCLUSION

This study is aiming at providing an additional overview of code mixing phenomena and alsoto make the readers know the types of code mixing. In the previous discussion, the researcher already analysed the data from the observation and interview. CCU class were selected to be observed by the researcher and there are two participants that were interviewed.

From the data observation, the researcher could answer the first question about the most frequent types of code mixing that were used by students in CCU class. The researcher concludesthat most of the students in Cross Cultural Understanding class use insertion and alternation types of code mixing when they mix their language and the rest use congruent lexicalization type.

For the second research question, the researcher collected the data from two subjects to be interviewed. From the answer of the first subject, the researcher concludes that the reasons arecaused by lexical needswhen talking about particular topics. Besides, the second subject mixed the language when she clarified information and when she quoted an Indonesian proverbs or words from historical persons (famous people). The researcher concluded that four out of ten reasons according to Hoffman (1991) are proved, because most of the students in Cross Cultural Understanding class said that they mixed their language for those four out of ten reasons. Those four reasons are talking about particular topic, repetition used for clarification, because of lexical need, and for quoting somebody else.

The result of this study is that insertion and alternation type are often used by students in CCU class because probably in some particular situation or because of some reasons according to Hoffman (1991) that are proved in this study, it is easier to use those two types of code mixing.

This research cannot be generalized to all students of English Literature study program or even to all CCU class because the data that were collected in this study are limited. If the study is conducted with different class or different students from another study program, the result could be different. It is suggested that for further research to use

a larger number of participants to gain more data or information about code mixing phenomena.

References

Aulia, G. (2009). The use of English Code Mixing in “Jakarta Undercover: Sex „n The City”.Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga.

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies . Oxford University Press.

Dwijayanti, A. (2012). An Analysis of Code Mixing in the Readers‟ letters of LOOKS and CHIC magazines. Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga.

Dwiningsih, Y. (2010). An Analysis of Code Mixing and Code Switching in

„COSMOGIRL‟ magazines. Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana, Salatiga. Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York: Longman. Holmes. J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistic. New York: Addison Wesley

Longman Inc. Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistic . Malaysia: Pearson Education Ltd Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner‟s dictionary. Berlin: Oxford University

Press Isharyanti, N. (2009). Code Switching and Code Mixing in Internet chatting: between

„yes‟, „ya‟, and „si‟, case study. Jaltcalljournal, 5(3), 67-78.Retrieved October 10, 2016, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251538002_Code_switching_and_code _mixing_in_internet_chating_betwen_yes_ya_and_si_a_case_study

Kim, E.(2006). Reasons and Motivations for Code-Mixing and Code-Switching. Spring 2006 Issues in EFL, 4(1). 43-61. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from

http://server1.docfoc.com/uploads/Z2016/02/05/2CJ44Vd0OE/ff2c38cc031b2917 1bfbe297b3957f35.pdf

MacKay, S. L. (2006). Researching second language classrooms . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge, UK:

Nababan, P.W.J. (1982). Language Teaching Issues . In Noss, R.B. Multilingual Environment in Southeast Asia. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.

Pamungkas, P. 2008. The Study of Code Mixing in Teaching Learning Process ofSpeaking in English Department of UMS 2007/2008. Retrieved October 6, 2015, from