English code-mixing in presidential candidate debates.

ABSTRACT

Murtiningtyas, Adreana Pritha 2015, English Code-Mixing in Presidential Candidate Debates. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

English is one of the foreign languages which is commonly used in the Indonesia today. Since English is a language which is commonly used, many people are interested in using it in their communication. Sometimes, some people in Indonesia mix their language between English and Bahasa Indonesia when they have a conversation. This phenomenon is called as a code-mixing. Code-mixing is a phenomenon where someone mixes two languages in one sentence. It is commonly used by people who can speak at least two languages.

This research was conducted to identify the types of code-mixing, which is made by the participants of presidential candidate debate 2014. Furthermore, the researcher conducted this research based on the utterances made by the participants. Since the data which is used was taken from the presidential candidate debates, the reseacher made the transcription of the debates by taking all videos of the debates.

Then the research method which is used by the researcher was content analysis. In this research, the reseacher as the main instrument. Moreover, the researcher also used observation sheet in a form of checklist to help her in analyzing the data. First, the researcher organized the data by breaking down the large body of the text. Then the researcher re-read the data to check whether she had accurate analysis or not. Next, the researcher classified the utterances into the categories according to the types of code-mixing. The last step, the reseacher summarized all of the findings.

The findings showed two types of code-mixing which are frequently made by the participants. They were insertion and alternation. From all debates, there were 156 utterances of insertion and 37 utterances of alternation.

ABSTRAK

Murtiningtyas, Adreana Pritha 2015, English Code-Mixing in Presidential Candidate Debates. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Bahasa Inggris merupakan salah satu bahasa asing yang umum digunakan di Indonesia. Karena Bahasa Inggris adalah bahasa yang umum digunakan maka membuat banyak orang tertarik untuk menggunakannya secara bersamaan di dalam komunikasi sehari-hari. Bahasa Inggris juga sangat populer di Indonesia. Terkadang beberapa orang mencampur Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris ketika mereka dalam percakapan sehari-hari. Fenomena ini dikenal dengan campur kode. Compur kode merupakan fenomena dimana seseorang mencampur dua bahasa didalam satu kalimat. Biasanya ini digunakan oleh orang yang bisa menggunakan setidaknya dua bahasa.

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengindentifikasi tipe dari campur kode yang dilakukan oleh para peserta debat presiden 2014. Selanjutnya, peneliti melakukan penelitian ini berdasarkan kalimat yang diucapkan oleh para peserta. Karena data diambil dari transkrip debat calon presiden 2014 peneliti membuat transkrip debat dengan mengambil semua video debat.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah content analysis. Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menjadi instrument utama. Selanjutnya, peneliti menggunakan lembar observasi berupa checklist untuk membantunya dalam menganalisa data. Yang pertama, peneliti mengorganisir data yang didapat dengan cara membagi text utama menjadi bagian yang lebih kecil. Lalu peneliti membaca kembali datanya untuk memastikan bahwa ia melakukan analisis secara akurat atau tidak. Selanjutnya, peneliti mengklasifikasikan kalimat tersebut kedalam kategori tipe dari campur kode. Langkah terakhir adalah menyimpulkan semua hasil temuan.

Hasil temuan menununjukan ada dua tipe campur kode yang sering digunakan oleh peserta debat. Kedua tipe itu adalah insertion dan alternation. Dari semua debat, ada 156 kalimat untuk insertion dan 37 kalimat untuk alternation. Kata Kunci: code-mixing, presidential candidate debate, sociolinguistics

ENGLISH CODE-MIXING IN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

DEBATES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Adreana Pritha Murtiningtyas Student Number: 101214099

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

i

ENGLISH CODE-MIXING IN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

DEBATES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Adreana Pritha Murtiningtyas Student Number: 101214099

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

iv

DEDICATION PAGE

“A dream doesn‟t become reality through magic; it takes

sweat, determination and hard work”

Colin Powell

“Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent

perspirations”

Thomas A. Edison

I dedicated this thesis to:

v

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 10 April 2015 The writer

Adreana Pritha Murtiningtyas 101214099

vi

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswi Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Adreana Pritha Murtiningtyas

Nomor Mahasiswa : 101214099

Demi kepentingan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

ENGLISH CODE-MIXING IN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DEBATES Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuklain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 10 April 2015

Yang menyatakan

vii ABSTRACT

Murtiningtyas, Adreana Pritha 2015, English Code-Mixing in Presidential Candidate Debates. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

English is one of the foreign languages which is commonly used in the Indonesia today. Since English is a language which is commonly used, many people are interested in using it in their communication. Sometimes, some people in Indonesia mix their language between English and Bahasa Indonesia when they have a conversation. This phenomenon is called as a code-mixing. Code-mixing is a phenomenon where someone mixes two languages in one sentence. It is commonly used by people who can speak at least two languages.

This research was conducted to identify the types of code-mixing, which is made by the participants of presidential candidate debate 2014. Furthermore, the researcher conducted this research based on the utterances made by the participants. Since the data which is used was taken from the presidential candidate debates, the reseacher made the transcription of the debates by taking all videos of the debates.

Then the research method which is used by the researcher was content analysis. In this research, the reseacher as the main instrument. Moreover, the researcher also used observation sheet in a form of checklist to help her in analyzing the data. First, the researcher organized the data by breaking down the large body of the text. Then the researcher re-read the data to check whether she had accurate analysis or not. Next, the researcher classified the utterances into the categories according to the types of code-mixing. The last step, the reseacher summarized all of the findings.

The findings showed two types of code-mixing which are frequently made by the participants. They were insertion and alternation. From all debates, there were 156 utterances of insertion and 37 utterances of alternation.

viii ABSTRAK

Murtiningtyas, Adreana Pritha 2015, English Code-Mixing in Presidential Candidate Debates. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Bahasa Inggris merupakan salah satu bahasa asing yang umum digunakan di Indonesia. Karena Bahasa Inggris adalah bahasa yang umum digunakan maka membuat banyak orang tertarik untuk menggunakannya secara bersamaan di dalam komunikasi sehari-hari. Bahasa Inggris juga sangat populer di Indonesia. Terkadang beberapa orang mencampur Bahasa Indonesia dan Bahasa Inggris ketika mereka dalam percakapan sehari-hari. Fenomena ini dikenal dengan campur kode. Compur kode merupakan fenomena dimana seseorang mencampur dua bahasa didalam satu kalimat. Biasanya ini digunakan oleh orang yang bisa menggunakan setidaknya dua bahasa.

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengindentifikasi tipe dari campur kode yang dilakukan oleh para peserta debat presiden 2014. Selanjutnya, peneliti melakukan penelitian ini berdasarkan kalimat yang diucapkan oleh para peserta. Karena data diambil dari transkrip debat calon presiden 2014 peneliti membuat transkrip debat dengan mengambil semua video debat.

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah content analysis. Dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menjadi instrument utama. Selanjutnya, peneliti menggunakan lembar observasi berupa checklist untuk membantunya dalam menganalisa data. Yang pertama, peneliti mengorganisir data yang didapat dengan cara membagi text utama menjadi bagian yang lebih kecil. Lalu peneliti membaca kembali datanya untuk memastikan bahwa ia melakukan analisis secara akurat atau tidak. Selanjutnya, peneliti mengklasifikasikan kalimat tersebut kedalam kategori tipe dari campur kode. Langkah terakhir adalah menyimpulkan semua hasil temuan.

Hasil temuan menununjukan ada dua tipe campur kode yang sering digunakan oleh peserta debat. Kedua tipe itu adalah insertion dan alternation. Dari semua debat, ada 156 kalimat untuk insertion dan 37 kalimat untuk alternation.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Writing a thesis is not an easy job for me. There were so many temptations to finish this thesis. On the other hand, writing this thesis is a kind of challenge. I need to control myself, manage my time and try to ignore those temptations. This thesis could make me stressful and want to give up. When I have finished this thesis, it feels like I have thrown all my pain away. I would thank Jesus Christ for his blessings during my writing process. He gave me spirit, strength, and health in finishing this thesis.

I would like to thank the people who supported me during my thesis writing process. Firstly, I would give my appreciation to my thesis advisor Christina Kristiyani S.Pd., M.Pd. especially for her guidance, support and patience during my thesis writing period. I thank her because she helped me from the beginning until the end of this thesis

Secondly, I would thank my family, especially my parents, Y.C. Eko Suharno and M.G. Puji Rahayu, who supported me when I got stuck or did not know what to do. They were my strength in finishing my thesis, and thanks for the prayer. My greatest thanks also go to my beloved brother Benedictus Damar Nugroho Aji, who called and reminded me about the unfinished tasks. My deepest gratitude also goes to my grandparents, mbah Tri and eyang who always put me on their prayers. I would thank my uncle om Harsoyo, my aunt tante Dewi, and their children Ara, Emil, Olga, and Adela, who always supported me during this time.

x

I would thank my super-duper best friends in my college period Fransiska Dwiningsih Renwarin, Ika Tyas Intani, and Silviana Piar. They encouraged, supported and listened to my story of thesis. My greatest gratitude also goes to my senior high school friends, Rena Widyawinata and Fransiska Finishiana, who always reminded me about my thesis. I also say thank my friends in batch 2010; Marino, Satya, Dyah, Siwi, Narima, Tere, Heni and others who cannot be

mentioned. My gratitude also goes to my „thesis-friends‟; Galang, Yoga, Chandra, Aurel, Mona, Jason, Gita, and Gabby.

Next, I would thank my brothers in batch 2008 mas Berlin Adi Pranendya and mas Adrian Bayuaji Wicaksono, who supported and listened about my thesis-story. My gratitude also goes to other brothers from batch 2012 Gheza Damara, Hilarius Raditya, Marcellus Gregorius and Dwittya Wiratama, who always reminded me about my thesis. They rarely said a good word, but they were good brothers who can be good-listeners. I would also thank Erin, Eris, and Deta, who supported me during these last semesters.

There are many other people who supported me in writing this thesis that cannot be mentioned such as all my pudding customers who bought my products and it helped me finish my thesis. I would give my deepest gratitude and I hope they are successful in their lives.

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ……… i

APPROVAL PAGES ……… ii

DEDICATION PAGE ……… iv

STATEMENT OF WORK‟S ORIGINALITY ……… v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ……… vi

ABSTRACT ………. vii

ABSTRAK ………. viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………. xi

LIST OF TABLES ………. xiv

LIST OF FIGURES ………. xv

LIST OF APPENDICES ………. xvi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ……… 1

A. Research Background ……… 1

B. Research Problem ……… 3

C. Problem Limitation ……… 3

D. Research Objective ……… 4

E. Research Benefits ……… 4

xii

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...…… 8

A. Theoretical Description ……… 8

1. Sociolinguistics ... 8

2. Code-mixing ... 9

a. Typology of Code-mixing ... 10

1) Insertion ... 11

2) Alternation ... 12

3) Congruent Lexicalization ... 14

3. Debate ... 16

4. Presidential Candidate Debates ... 17

B. Theoretical Framework ……… 18

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……… 20

A. Research Method ………... 20

B. Research Setting ………... 22

C. Research Participants ………... 23

D. Instrument and Data Gathering ……… 23

E. Data Analysis Technique ……… 24

F. Research Procedure ……… 25

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION .... 29

A. Findings ………... 29

xiii

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS …. 47

A. Conclusions ……… 47

B. Recommendations ……… 49

C. Implication ... 50

REFERENCES ……… 51

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1. The list of Presidential Candidate Debate……….……….. 25

4.1. The total of code-mixing in the first debate…….…….………….. 30

4.2. The total and percentage of code-mixing cases... 31

in the second up to fifth debate...………….…………. 33

4.3. The number of insertion cases……… 34

4.4. The list of insertion on the first debate ………. 35

4.5. The list of insertion on the second debate ……….. 36

4.6. The list of insertion on the third debate ……….. 37

4.7. The list of insertion on the fourth debate ……… 38

4.8. The list of insertion on the fifth debate ……… 40

4.9. The number of alternation cases ……….. 41

4.10. The list of alternation on the first debate ………. 42

4.11. The list of alternation on the second debate ………. 43

4.12. The list of alternation on the third debate ………. 44

4.13. The list of alternation on the fourth debate ………... 45

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1. Insertion (Muysken, 2000) ……….………… 12 2.2. Alternation (Muysken, 2000) ……….. 13 2.3. Congruent Lexicalization (Muysken, 2000) ……… 15

xvi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. The list of the data ………. 54

B. Transcription of first debate ………. 73

C. Transcription of second debate ……..………. 103

D. Transcription of third debate ………. 123

E. Transcription of fourth debate ………. 148

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the researcher presents a brief discussion of research background, research problem, problem limitation, research objective, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

English is one of the languages which is usually used in the world nowadays. There are many countries which have used English as the international language in their communications. According to Kachru (1992) as cited by Lauder (2008) Indonesia is a part of expanding circle where according to Crystall (2003) as cited by Lauder (2008) expanding circle has 750 million speakers of English as foreign language. This means that a lot of people are capable to use English. Moreover, Lauder (2008) adds that English is important for Indonesia since English is a global or international language. Since English becomes so important, many people are interested in studying English.

English learners have different reasons to learn English; the first reason is called as ‘instrumental’ reason and the second is called as ‘integrative’ reason. Instrumental reason means learners learn English because it was a requirement or because they needed it to accomplish some other goal (Holmes, 2001). For instance, in a job vacancy, it requires the job applicants to have the English skills either active or passive. This requirement forces people to learn English for the

purpose. The other reason is integrative reason, learners learn English because they want to know about the culture (Holmes, 2001). On the other side some Indonesians who use English have one major reason, prestige. Hassall (2011) describes that English carries a very high condition in Indonesia, and thus when a speaker uses language which sound English, a certain prestige may attach to him or her as a result. Hassal (2011) adds the speaker can sound moderns, sophisticated, and highly educated.

As stated by the fact above, people start to realize that study English is a must for them who have either an instrumental reason or integrative reason. English is needed to assist people in many aspect, for instance, in education, working place, or even in communication in daily life. In communication, English has become very common. Sometimes people tend to mix English with Bahasa Indonesia. This phenomenon is called as code-switching or code-mixing. Based on Hoffmann (1991), code-switching involves the alternate use of two languages or linguistics varieties within is the same utterance or during the same conversation. Moreover, McLaughlin (1984), as cited by Hoffmann (1991) adds that code-switching refers to language changes occurring across sentence boundaries, whereas code-mixing sometimes takes place within in a sentence in very short utterances. Code-mixing is commonly used by people who know at least two languages.

According to Wardaugh (2010), code-mixing can arise from individual choice or be used as a major identity marker for a group of speakers who must deal with more than one language in their common pursuits. However, in another

3 case, people code-switch when they do not know the appropriate translation in the target language (Wardaugh, 2010). On the other hand, according to Holmes (2001), this kind of code-mixing called as lexical borrowing, which reflects a lack of vocabulary in a language. People do code-mixing from their mother tongue because they don’t know the appropriate word in their second language. It happens to express a concept or describe an object for which there is no obvious word available in the language they are using.

Mixing language is commonly used because it often occurs in daily conversation, such as on the radio, internet, and television. Television is one of the common communication tools. From the programs on television, they give many advantages for people because they contain much information. In television programs such as presidential candidate debate 2014, people can find the code-mixing. Code-mixing can be found in the debate because people who were involved in the debate tended to mix between Bahasa Indonesia and English. In this case, the ones who used to mix between Bahasa Indonesia and English were the participants of the debate.

The participants of the debate are the candidates of presidential election 2014. In the presidential candidate debates, the participants often did the code-mixing and this phenomenon attracted the writer’s interest to identify the types of mixing which occurs in the debates. To see further explanations of mixing made by the participants, this research will discuss the types of code-mixing in the debate.

B. Research Problems

There is one problem to be solved in this research, namely, what are the types of code-mixing which occur in a presidential debate?

C. Problem Limitation

This research focused on the code-mixing, which is made by the participants of presidential debate which is held five times. Moreover, the main focus of this research is the types of code-mixing. In addition, the participants of the debate are the candidates in the presidential election. To collect the data, the researcher took all of the debate videos from youtube.com and made the transcription of the videos. The analysis of the data was done from how often the participants made code-mixing in their utterances.

D. Research Objectives

Since this research intended to find out the answer to the problem, this research has an objective. Based on the data, the researcher wants to find out the code-mixing types which commonly occur in the debate.

E. Research Benefits

The result of this research is useful to the next researcher, the readers and PBI students who are interested in sociolinguistics especially code-mixing.

5 1. The next researcher

This research hopefully will help the next researcher who conducts the same topic by giving information related to code-mixing. By doing research on code-mixing, it will enrich the readers to understand more about code-mixing. The next researcher can try to conduct research on code-mixing, but on different issues such as code-mixing which occurs on twitter or magazines.

2. The readers

This research will be useful for those who are interested in code-mixing topic. This research will give a deeper understanding about the types of code-mixing. Then this research will provide the readers with information about types of code-mixing.

3. ELESP students

This research is expected to help ELESP students who are interested in sociolinguistics to give more information about code-mixing especially about the types of code-mixing.

F. Definition of Terms

This part will define some terms which are used in this research. The purpose is to avoid misunderstanding in perceiving some important terms in this research.

1. Code-mixing

Code-mixing or code-switching is defined as the use of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation (Myers-Scotton, 2000). Code-mixing

commonly occurs in bilingual or multilingual society. According to Wardaugh (2010), code-mixing arise from individual choice or be used as a major identity maker for a group of speakers who must deal with more than one language in their common pursuits (p. 98). In this study, code-mixing happens between English and Bahasa Indonesia. The English words which are used in the utterances are not loan words from English to Bahasa Indonesia. For clearer explanation, it will be explained more in Chapter Three.

2. Debate

As stated by Freely (1969), debate is ubiquitous in our society at decision-making level. Moreover, the debate is a method of rational decision-decision-making and debate consists of arguments for against to a given proportion. Freely (1969) also states that the debate will help us to make rational decisions and to secure rational decisions from others. Since the subject of this research was the debates. Therefore, in this study, the theory of debate is used to know the nature of the debate itself.

3. Presidential Candidate Debate

Based on General Election Commission (KPU) websites (2014), presidential candidate debate is an event which is held by General Election Commission (KPU) before the presidential election. This 2014 debate is the second debate which is held by the General Election Commission, the first debate was held on 2009. Both first and second debates were divided into five parts with a different topic for each part. The first debate was broadcasted by Trans Corp, SCTV, Metro TV, TvOne, and RCTI. Moreover, the second debate was

7 broadcasted by SCTV, Metro TV, TvOne, RCTI, MNCTV, Global TV, TVRI, Kompas TV, and RTV. This event aims to give a chance for the presidential candidate to explain their vision and mission.

8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter consists of two parts, the first is the theoretical description and the second is the theoretical framework. Theoretical description presents the detailed discussions about mixing, types of mixing, reasons of code-mixing, presidential candidate debate, and biography of a presidential candidate. The theoretical framework presents the synthesis of important concepts which is used in this research.

A. Theoretical Description

In this part, the researcher discusses the theories that underline the research. There are some theories and information which have relation to this research. The theory which is used is code-mixing -- it includes the definition of code-mixing, types of code-mixing, and reasons of code-mixing. Furthermore, the information is about presidential candidate debate -- it includes the biography of a presidential candidate.

1. Sociolinguistics

According to Van Herk (2012), sociolinguistics is the scientific study of the relationships between language and society. It means that the language has relation with society since language is must be used in society. Hudson (1969) as cited by Wardaugh (2000) also adds that sociolinguistics is the study of language in relation to society, whereas the sociology of language is the study of society in

9 relation to language. Sometimes people can find two or more languages that are used in one society. The society which has two languages is called as bilingualism. Then the society which has more than two languages is called as multilingualism. Such condition causes a phenomenon called code-switching or code-mixing. Thus, code-switching or code-mixing is included in a sociolinguistics study.

2. Code-mixing

According to Wardaugh (2010) a code is a language, a variety of language. It is used since the term code is neutral rather than the terms such as dialect, vernacular, style, standard language, pidgin, and creole. Code can be used to refer to any kind of communication. Oladosu (2011) says that in communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information into another form or representation, not necessarily of the same sort. When people produce language, it means people produce code. People can choose whether to use a single code or more than one code. People in multilingualism or bilingualism, who use more than one codes tend to mix or switch their first code or another code. Wardaugh (2010) says that most of the multilingualism or bilingualism speakers command several varieties of any language they speak. Wardaugh also adds that people are usually required to select particular code whenever they speak and they may also decide to switch or to mix from one code to another within sometimes very short utterances, this process is called as code-switching or code-mixing.

Code-mixing which is also called as intra-sentential code-switching or intra-sentential code-alteration occurs when speakers use two or more languages

below clause within one social situation. Singh (1985), as quoted by Romaine (1995) says that the term code-mixing is used for intra-sentential switching. Intra-sentential switching means, switching that occurs within one sentence (Holmes, 1992). Code-mixing is the use of one language in another language, the mixing of two or more languages or language varieties in a speech. Hamers and Blanc (2000) define code-mixing as a type of insertion code-switching, where a constituent of language A is embedded in an utterance in Language B and the language B is clearly the dominant language. In addition, McCormick (1995) suggests that code-switching involves the alternation of elements longer than one word while code-mixing involves shorter elements, often just a single word. Therefore, code-mixing is the use of two languages in one sentence where the language A is embedded in language B which is dominant.

In conclusion, code-mixing is a part of code-switching which categorized as intra-sentential code-switching. Code-mixing can occur only in short utterances like one word, on the other hand, code-switching often occurs in more than one word. In this thesis, the researcher used the term mixing rather than switching since the data of the research are categorized as intra-sentential code-switching.

a. Typology of Code-mixing

Code-mixing is related to grammatical theory. Pieter Muysken (2000) proposes three models of code-mixing since there is no such a model provided by grammatical theory and language processing. Pieter Muysken (2000) also proposes three patterns of intra-sentential code-switching or people called it as

11 code-mixing. They are; insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalization. They are described as below:

1)Insertion

For this type, Muysken (2000) explains that one way in which languages may be combined within the syntactic unit is such that language A is dominant and language B is inserted into the grammatical frame defined by language A. According to Myers-Scotton (2002) as cited by Auer and Muhamedova, linguists call the dominant language as Matrix Language (ML) and inserted language as Embedded Language (EL). The insertion itself can be only single lexical items such a word. Cantone (2007) adds insertion is given when elements from one language are mixed or inserted into another language.

Based on Muysken‟s account, Cantone (2007) says that 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. Cantone (2007) also gives an example of insertion code-mixing, this example involving English and German „I go to the movie with my fratello’. The word fratello means friend in English, and it is clear that fratello is inserted into English grammatical structure in a sentence. The explanation will be explained by figure 2.1.

A B A

…a…. ...b… …a…

Figure: 2.1 Insertion (Bilingual Speech: Typology of Code-mixing, Muysken, 2000.)

In this study

A : represents Bahasa Indonesia

a : shows grammatical structure of BahasaIndonesia B : represents English

b : shows words in English which are inserted in an Indonesian sentence.

From the figure 2.1, it can be seen that language A is a Matrix Language (ML) in the sentence and the language B which is an Embedded Language (EL) in the sentence. Furthermore, it shows that a word in English (ML) is inserted in a sentence in Bahasa Indonesia (EL). Therefore, it can be concluded that an insertion is a code-mixing, which happens in a sentence by adding a word in another language that is different from the dominant language.

2)Alternation

This type is a little bit different from the previous type, insertion. Insertion is dealing with how one word of one language is inserted into another language pattern. On the other hand, alternation does not only insert some words of a language into another language pattern, but also involves the grammar pattern of the language. Muysken (2000) says that “In the case of alternation, there is a

13 true switch from one language to another language, involving both grammar and lexicon.” According to Poplack (1980), as cited by Cantone (2007), alternation means code-switching under equivalences and involves and analysis of the structural compatibility of two languages, in the sense of equivalence between them at a given switching point. Thus, alternation is a mixing of two languages which is not only one word inserted into another language, but also involves the grammar pattern.

Since alternation is not only just inserted an element of a language to another language, but also involve both grammar and lexicon. It is ending up in a true switching from one language to another language (Muysken, 2000). Cantone (2007) gives an example English-German alternation as follows: “She went to

quel ristorante all’angolo,” which means “She went to that restaurant at the

corner.” From the example, it can be seen that the switching happens between clauses. Figure 2.2 is the representation of the explanation.

A B

…a… …b…

Figure: 2.2 Alternation (Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing, Muysken, 2000.)

In this study

A : represents Bahasa Indonesia

a : shows words in Bahasa Indonesia with its own sentence structure B : represents English

From the figure 2.2, it can be seen a group of words from language A (with language A‟s grammatical structure) is followed by group of words from language B (with language B‟s grammatical structure) (Muysken, 2000). Therefore, it is possible for any bilingual or multilingual speaker to start speaking one language and finish in another language. Muysken (2000) adds that from the sociolinguistics point of view, alternation should be found in „stable bilingual communities with a tradition of language separation‟.

3)Congruent Lexicalization

In describing this type, Muysken (2000) says that congruent lexicalization appears where there is a largely shared structure, lexicalization by elements from either language. Moreover, Cantone (2007) adds that congruent lexicalization is the type of mixing, which calls for social-linguistic constraint. It involves material from different lexicons in a grammatical structure which is said to be shared.

To be more understandable, Cantone (2007) takes example of English and German mixing as follows: “Her Grandma is a typical familienmensch.” In English, this utterances means “Her Grandma is a typical family person.” This case belongs to congruent lexicalization since there is shared structure of English and German in the word ”familiennmensch.” Cantone (2007) adds that this example involving two languages, English and German which are basically similar with respect to grammatical structures. Thus, congruent lexicalization can be found in the languages which basically have similar grammatical structures.

15 Cantone (2007) says “Congruent lexicalization is said to be found among bilinguals with related languages as dialect/standard or post-creole.” Muysken (2000) says that the term congruent lexicalization refers to a situation where the two languages share a grammatical structure which can be filled lexically with elements from either language. The explanation is represented in figure 2.3 below.

A/B

…a… …b… …a… …b…

Figure: 2.3 Congruent Lexicalization (Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing, Muysken, 2000.)

In this study

A : represents Bahasa Indonesia a : shows words in Bahasa Indonesia B : represents English

b : shows English words

In conclusion, the researcher believes that code-mixing is a case where two elements of two languages are found in one utterance or a sentence. Based on the previous explanation, it can be said that people can mix their language in one utterance, but people cannot obey that code-mixing related to the grammatical structure of a language. The researcher concludes that insertion is code-mixing between words, alternation is code-mixing between clause, and congruent lexicalization is code-mixing which share grammatical structure in one sentence. Code-mixing has been described as the sociolinguistics phenomenon as observed

in the speech of adults as observed in this study. Therefore, code-mixing is possible to be found in adults‟ speech such as debates.

3. Debate

As stated by Freely (1969), debate is ubiquitous in our society at making level. Moreover, the debate is a method of rational decision-making and debate consists of arguments for against to a given proportion. Freely (1969) also states that a debate will help us to make rational decisions and to secure rational decisions from others.

According to Freely (1969), there are two kinds of debate; substantive debate and educational debate. Substantive debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates have a special interest. The purpose of this debate is to establish a fact, value or a policy. Besides, educational debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates usually have an academic interest. The purpose of this debate is to provide educational opportunities for the participants.

Freely (1969) adds there are four kinds of debates inside the substantive debate; special debate, judicial debate, parliamentary debate, and non-formal debate. Special debate is a debate which is conducted under special rules and drafted for a specific occasion. Judicial debate is a debate which is conducted in the law court or before quasi-judicial bodies. Parliamentary debate is a debate which is conducted under the rules of parliamentary procedure. Then, non-formal debate is a debate which is conducted without the formal rules.

17 4. Presidential Debate

Based on General Election Commission websites, presidential candidate debate is a debate which is conducted once in a five time before the Election Day by the General Election Commission. The first presidential candidate debate was held on 2009. According to the Freely‟s theory (1969), the presidential candidate debate is included in the substantive debate that is parliamentary debate. It is included in parliamentary debate because it has parliamentary procedure and its own constitution.

Presidential candidate debate has its own regulations that regulate the debate as a part of the campaign. According to a constitution number 42, article 38 of 2008 debate is a part of the campaign that the candidate did before the Election Day. This article said that the presidential candidate campaign is implemented through debate. Moreover, the article 39 from constitution number 42 regulated the technique of the debate. It is said that the debate is held by General Election Commission in five times and it is broadcasted on national television. The moderator of the debate is chosen by General Election Commission. During and after the debate the candidate, moderator cannot give any comment and conclusion about the material which is told by the candidate. The material of the debate is about the national vision which is written in UUD 1945. The cost of the debate is charged to expenditure budget and state expenditures.

B.Theoretical Framework

In order to conduct the research, the researcher should look for some theories which are appropriately used for the research. These theories support her in solving the problem formulation. This section will be divided into two parts. Each of the part provides explanation about the contribution of the theories in answering the research problem.

Firstly, this research focuses on code-mixing, which occur in a presidential candidate debate. In order to know the nature of the presidential candidate debate, the researcher used information from the General Election Commission. According to the constitution, the debates held for five times with different themes. Consequently, the researcher took all of the debates to take the data. Since the focus of the debate was only for the presidential candidate debate 2014, the researcher only focused on the five debates of presidential candidate debate 2014. Since all data were taken from the videos, the researcher took the data based on the way participants pronounced the words.

Secondly, to recognize the concept of code-mixing, the researcher used the theory from Singh (1985) in Romaine‟s work (1995) states that code-mixing refers to intra-sentential code-switching. To solve the research problem about types of code-mixing, the researcher combines the theories from Muysken (2000) about the types of code-mixing to solve the problem. There are three types of code-mixing; alternation, insertion, and congruent lexicalization. Alternation is the types of code-mixing where the mixing happened between clauses in one

19 sentence. Meanwhile, insertion is the types of code-mixing where a word from language A is embedded into language B in one sentence. Moreover, congruent lexicalization is the types of code-mixing where there are two languages which have the same grammatical structure, share it in one language.

20

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method of the study to solve the problem which is stated in chapter I. This study intended to observe the code-mixing, which is made by the participants of presidential candidate debate. This chapter presents the discussion of research method, research setting, research participants, instruments and data gathering, data analysis technique, and the last is a research procedure.

A. Research Method

The researcher used qualitative research for this research. Qualitative research is an approach to the study of social and behavioral phenomena (Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. 2002). In addition, the goal of this research is a

“holistic picture and depth understanding, rather than a numeric analysis of data”

(Ary et al., 2002). Qualitative research and quantitative research are different. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2008), one of the differences is a qualitative researcher collects the data in a form of words or pictures and seldom involve numbers. Therefore, to analyze the data in a form of words, the researcher used observation sheet and document. The researcher used observation sheet and the transcript of the debates since it was difficult to interview the participants. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2008), content analysis is a primary method of data analysis in qualitative research.

21 Fraenkel and Wallen (2008) say that content analysis is a technique that enables researchers to study human behavior in an indirect way, through an analysis their communications. The source of data can be from textbooks, essays, newspapers, novels, magazines, cookbooks, songs, political speeches, advertisement, and pictures. In this study, the sources of the data are videos of presidential candidate debates 2014. The researcher did not record the videos by herself, but she took it from www.youtube.com.

Furthermore, content analysis is a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text (Weber, 1990). Moreover, Leedy and Ormrod (2005) state, that content analysis is a detailed and systematic examination of the content of a particular body and it typically performed on forms of human communication. This method would support the researcher to answer the problems which are stated in chapter I.

While conducting the research, the researcher used two kinds of content analysis method. They were manifest content of communication and latent content of a document. Faenkel and Wallen (2008) explain that a manifest content of communication refers to the surface of the words, pictures, and images which accessible to the naked eye or ear. Using the manifest content of a communication, the researcher can find the types of code-mixing which is made by the participants.

B. Research Setting

Presidential candidate debate is an event which is held by General Election Commission. This event is held once in five years since 2009 before the Election

Day. The function of this debate is to tell the citizens about their mission and vision. In 2009, there were three participants who joined the debate. There were SBY, JK, and MSP who were included in the debate in 2009. In 2014, there were four participants who were divided into two groups. The first group is the first candidate in a presidential election PS and his running mate HR. The second group consists of JW and his running mate JK.

The case of this research is the presidential candidate debates 2014 which was held five times in June up to July. The first debate was held on Monday 9th of June 2014, the second debate was held on 15th of June 2014, the third debate was held on 22nd of June 2014, the fourth debate was held on 29th of June 2014, and the last debate was held on 5th of July 2014. This program was aired on some National television channels. In this thesis, the researcher took five videos of the presidential candidate debate which came from all of the debates parts.

The researcher started downloading the videos on July 2014 and analyzed them for the following months. The researcher could conduct the research effectively, which means she could conduct the research in any place and time in which required supports and equipment are available.

C. Research Participants

The subjects of this research are the participants of the presidential candidate debates 2014. They were PS and his running mate HR the first candidate in the presidential election. JW and his running mate as the second candidate of the presidential election JK. All of them have different educational backgrounds, different experience in the carrier, and different background of

23 language competency. This different background, language competency would give significant influence to their speaking production. In giving their arguments, they tend make code-mixing during the debate. It attracted the researcher’s to conduct the research of code-mixing which are made by the participants. Between the participants and the moderator tend to make code-mixing. However, the researcher only focused on the code-mixing which are made by the participants since they had the same role in that event. Therefore, it would be easier to compare the speaking production from each participant.

D. Instrument and Data Gathering

In this research, the researcher was provided with a checklist. A checklist was used to analyze whether the code-mixing made by the participants belonged to alternation, insertion or congruent lexicalization.

Since the researcher conducted qualitative research where the researchers are able to interpret and make sense of any social phenomenon (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005), she was considered as the primary instrument. Moreover, Leedy and Omrod (2005) suggest, “The researcher is an instrument in much the same way that sociogram, raring scale or intelligence test in an instrument” (p. 133). With the aim of getting the data about code-mixing which are made by the participants, the researcher took five videos of the debate and made the transcription from each video which would help the researcher collecting the date.

E. Data Analysis Technique

After collecting the data, the researcher started to analyze the data. Creswell (1998) as cited by Leedy and Ormrod (2005) say that the data analysis for qualitative research is using spiral data analysis. There are four steps in the data analysis spiral as follows:

1. Organization

Creswell (1998), as cited by Leedy and Ormrod (2005), describes that the researcher must break down a large body of the text into smaller units in the form of a sentence or individual words. Therefore, the researcher searches the utterances which contained the code-mixing in the transcription of the debate. Then she made the list of the results as shown in the analysis of code-mixing table.

2. Checking

In this step, the researcher should re-read the data carefully to check whether she had done accurate analysis or not. According to Cresswell (1998), as cited by Leedy and Ormrod (2005), check the entire data set several times to get a sense of what it contains as a whole. By reread and recheck the data, the researcher could find the incorrect parts and make a correction on it. This step helped the researcher to make the data more valid and reliable.

3. Classification

According to Cresswell (1998), as cited by Leedy and Ormrod (2005), the researcher should identify the general categories or themes and perhaps subcategories or subthemes words and then classify each piece of data

25 accordingly. In this research, the researcher classified the utterances which contain code-mixing into which types. Therefore, the particular utterances that contain mixing should be given a checklist mark in particular types of code-mixing.

4. Synthesis

After the researcher finished identifying the code-mixing, which is made by the participants in the debate, she had to summarize and integrate the data. To make it clearer and more understandable, she made it to the table and matrix. It shows the important points which are discussed by the researcher.

F. Research Procedure

This section would explain the procedures that the researcher did in conduction the research. The research was conducted in six steps:

1. Making the Transcription of Each Video

Before the researcher makes the transcription, the researcher took and downloaded five videos of the debates from Youtube.com. The researcher downloaded the full version of the debates. The researcher used an application from website, namely www.otranscribe.com for transcribing the debates. Those videos contained the utterances from the participants, which contain code-mixing. Those videos were shown in the table 3.1.

Table 3.1: The Topic List of Presidential Candidate Debate

No. The theme of the debate Date of the debate

1 Pembangunan Demokrasi, Pemerintahan yang Bersih, dan Kepastian Hukum (Democracy Building, Clean Governance and Legal

No. The theme of the debate Date of the debate

Certainty)

2 Pembangunan Ekonomi dan Kesejahteraan Sosial (Development of the Economy and Social Welfare)

June 15, 2014

3 Politik Internasional dan Ketahanan Nasional (International Politics and National Security)

June 22, 2014 4 Pembangunan Sumber Daya Manusia dan

IPTEK (The Development of HumanResources, Science, and Technology)

June 29, 2014

5 Pangan, Energi, dan Lingkungan (Energy, Food Security and Environment)

July 5, 2014

The researcher downloaded five videos, then made the transcription of each videos in order to collect the data. She watched the videos carefully to make good transcription. It took two months to make the transcription. As stated before, the reseacher used an application from website namely www.otranscribe.com. The application is equipped with shortcuts buttons as a tool to make the transcription. The shortcuts are on the keyboard such as esc, F1, F2, and ctrl+j. To play the videos, the researcher used the button esc on the keyboard. Then the button F1 is used to make the videos play slower. While F2 is used to make the videos play faster. Last, the button ctrl+j is used to insert the current timestamp. _{With those} shortcuts on her keyboard, the researcher was eased to make the transcription. She wrote every single word which is spoken by the participants and the moderator. The transcription would not only as the tool in analyzing the data, but also assist the readers to have the real description of the debates.

27 2. Listing the sentences which contained Code-mixing utterance

Through the transcriptions, the researcher had to list code-mixing utterances in order to complete the data analyzing. She picked all the utterances which contain code-mixing.

3. Checking the words in Indonesian dictionary

After the researcher got all the utterances which contain code-mixing she started to check the English words in the dictionary. She checked the English words are not loan words from English to Indonesian. The researcher checked the Indonesian dictionary (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia) to find it out. Then the researcher found the words such as credible, problem, export, import, and management etc. as the loan words. The researcher omitted the utterances which had those words and did not make them as the data.

4. Classifying the types of Code-mixing

The list of mixing utterances was identified to which types of code-mixing. The researcher should put the checkmark in the A column if that utterance belongs to the alternation type, in column B if that utterance belongs to the insertion type and in column C if that utterance belongs to the congruent lexicalization. Through the identification, the data would help the researcher in understanding the code-mixing phenomenon in presidential candidate debate. 5. Analyzing the Data

Then, the researcher should analyze the tendency of code-mixing, which occurs in a presidential debate. To find out the amount of the data and the tendency, the researcher should count which types of code-mixing which occurs

the most in the presidential debate. Then, researcher counted the percentage of each type of code-mixing by using this formula:

1. P=

2. P=

3. P=

Note:

P = the percentage

NA = the number of alternation NI = the number of insertion

NCL = the number of congruent lexicalization T = the total of code-mixing

The researcher would compare the occurrences of the code-mixing, which is made by participants in the debate. From the comparison, the researcher observed, which types of code-mixing got the highest number.

6. Drawing the Conclusions

The last step in this research was drawing the conclusion based on the findings. It would give a clearer description as the answer to the problem formulations to the readers.

29

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will discuss the findings of the research. The findings will be discussed to solve the problem formulations. Since there are two questions, so it is divided into two main sections. The first is about the types of code-mixing made by the participants. Then the second is about the functions of code-mixing, which is also made by the participants of the presidential debate 2014. The researcher uses the theories from chapter II to reveal the answer to the problem.

A. Findings

In this part, the researcher would like to present the findings of the research which were gathered from the checklist sheet. Previously, the researcher will explain about the consideration of the meaning of code-mixing. The researcher refers to Singh‟s theory (1985) which is cited by Romaine (1995) that code-mixing is an intra-sentential code-switching. According to Holmes (1992), intra-sentential switching here means switching that occurs within one sentence.

Moreover, McCormick (1995) suggests that code-switching involves the alternation of elements longer than one word while code-mixing involves shorter elements, often just a single word. In addition, Alabi (2007) states that the code-mixing is often unconscious illocutionary act in naturally occurring conversation (as cited in Oladosu, 2011). Therefore, the researcher concludes that the code-mixing is a case where the elements of two or more languages are found in single

utterances. It can occur in short utterances like one word and it is often a spontaneous or unconscious illocutionary act in a conversation.

In order to understand more about code-mixing, which is made by the participants, the researcher collected the data by using the checklist sheet. Checklist sheet here is a part of the instruments from the content analysis method. In order to dig deeper about the types of code-mixing, the researcher uses the manifest content of a communication. Fraenekel and Wallen (2008) say that it analyzes the surface of the words, pictures, and images which is accessible to the naked eye or ear. The researcher uses it because it is very clear that the participants did code-mixing while they are debating.

This research focused on the code-mixing utterances which are made by the debate‟s participants. Then, the code-mixing is only focused on English – Bahasa Indonesia utterances. The participants of the debate were: PS, HR, JW and JK. The researcher took five videos because every video has little examples of code-mixing. The total cases of the code-mixing, which is made by the each participant in the first debate would be presented in table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Total of code-mixing cases in the first debate

No Name of Participants Total Utterances Total Code-mixing

Percentage

1 PS 136 4 2.94%

2 HR 56 5 8.92%

3 JW 103 5 4.85%

4 JK 111 3 2.70%

From the table above, it can be concluded that the cases of code-mixing from the first debate is too little to be taken as examples in this research. Therefore, the researcher took five videos of presidential candidate debate. The total quantity of

31 code-mixing cases from the second debate up to fifth debate will be presented in table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Total and Percentage of code-mixing cases in the second up to fifth debate

No Name of Participants Total Utterances Total Code-mixing

Percentage Second Debate

1 PS 200 6 3%

2 JW 191 13 6.8%

Third Debate

1 PS 169 23 13.6%

2 JW 156 16 10.25%

Fourth Debate

1 HR 207 40 19.3%

2 JK 230 8 3.4%

Fifth Debate

1 PS 140 2 1.4%

2 HR 139 19 13.6%

3 JW 167 9 5.3%

4 JK 75 3 4%

Total 139

There were 139 cases of code mixing from the second debate up to the fifth debate. Then, there are 156 cases of code-mixing in total from the first debate up to the last debate which would be divided into two types of code-mixing. In this research, the researcher used the theory from Pieter Muysken (2000) to explain about the types of code-mixing.

The last type of code-mixing is congruent lexicalization. This type is different with two other types. In this type, the two languages share the grammar structure in one sentence. Unfortunately the last type of code-mixing called as congruent lexicalization cannot be found in this research since there were no grammatical shares between English and Bahasa Indonesia.

B. Discussion of the Types of Code-mixing

According to Muysken (2000), there are three types of code-mixing. The first type is called as an insertion; the researcher concluded it as code-mixing which happened between words. The second type is called as alternation; the researcher concluded it as code-mixing between clauses. Then, the last called as congruent lexicalization, this type is different because it shares grammatical structures from more than one language. In each type, the researcher also presented the finding in five videos of presidential candidate debates.

1. Insertion

The first type of code-mixing is insertion. According to Musyken (2000), insertion is code-mixing where the languages may be combined within a syntactic unit that language A is dominant and language B is inserted into grammatical frame defined by language A. The researcher concludes it as code-mixing where a word in language B is inserted in language A. In this research the dominant language is Bahasa Indonesia and the inserted language is English.

The researcher got the data after classifying the code-mixing utterances based on the types. For instance, in the first debate there were 17 cases of code mixing. Then the researcher divided it into three types of code-mixing; insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalization. Then the researcher found that in the first debate, there were 14 cases of insertion code-mixing. The researcher did the same for the rest of the videos and the number of cases would be presented in table 4.3.

33

Table 4.3 Number of Insertion Cases

No. Date of Debate

Theme of the Debate Number of code-mixing

Number of Insertion

Percentage

1 9th of June 2014

Pembangunan

Demokrasi, Pemerintahan yang Bersih, dan Kepastian Hukum (Democracy Building, Clean Governance and Legal Certainty)

17 14 82.3%

2 15th of June 2014

Pembangunan Ekonomi dan Kesejahteraan Sosial (Development of the Economy and Social Welfare)

19 14 73.68%

3 22nd of June 2014

Politik Internasional dan Ketahanan Nasional (International Politics and National Security)

39 29 75%

4 29th of June 2014

Pembangunan Sumber Daya Manusia dan IPTEK (The Development of HumanResources, Science, and Technology)

48 35 72.9%

5 5th of July 2014

Pangan, Energi, dan Lingkungan (Energy, Food Security and Environment)

33 27 82.8%

Total 156 119 -

The first debate which was conducted on the 9th of June 2014 with theme Pembangunan Demokrasi Pemerintahan yang Bersih Dan Kepastian Hukum (Democracy Building, Clean Governance, and Legal Certainty) got 14 cases of insertion which means there is 82.3% case of the total code-mixing cases. Some findings can be seen from the table 4.4.

Table 4.4 List of Insertion on the First Debate

No Utterances Types

A B C

1

Tapi ia ada sebuah sistem nilai values yang perlu kita tegakkan dan yakini values tersebut akan menghantarkan kita kepada kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan untuk seluruh rakyat Indonesia.

 2 Sekarang ini masyarakat berkurang trust-nya kepada

institusi hukum. 

3 Yang pertama adalah pencegahan, ini membangun

sistem building yang baik. 

The data in table 4.4 were gathered by the researcher based on the observation sheet. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the data by identifying the types of each utterance. By referring to the Muysken‟s theory (2000) about the typology of code-mixing, it can be seen that participants inserted English words in Bahasa Indonesia grammatical structure. In all these cases, the Matrix Language (ML) is Bahasa Indonesia. To discover that the utterances above were made by Bahasa Indonesia as the ML, the researcher would explain some examples. First, the utterances number one (see table 4.4),

“Tapi ia ada sebuah sistem nilai values yang perlu kita tegakkan dan yakini values tersebut akan menghantarkan kita kepada kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan untuk seluruh rakyat Indonesia.” (HR, 9th of June 2014)

“Nevertheless, there is a value system values that we need to run and believe which the values will deliver us to the prosperity and tranquility for all Indonesian citizens” (HR, 9th of June 2014)

There was an English noun „values‟ in this utterance which was identified as Insertion with Bahasa Indonesia as the ML. Most of the code-mixing, which happened in the debate were insertion with Bahasa Indonesia as the ML. Another example of insertion from the first debate is said by JW:

35 “Kalau ada prestasi, berikan insentif, berikan reward kepada mereka.” (JW, 9th of June 2014)

“If there are achievements, give incentives, give rewards to them.” (JW, 9th of June 2014)

In the utterance above, there was an English noun „reward‟ which identified as insertion and still Bahasa Indonesia as the ML. Moreover, in the first debate there were a lot of insertions of English noun since the participants insert some English nouns in their speech. In the first debate, JW produced a more code-mixing, especially the insertion rather than the other participants.

In the second debate which was conducted on the 15th of June 2014 had theme Pembangunan Ekonomi Dan Kesejahteraan Sosial (Development of the Economy and Social Welfare) got only 14 cases of insertion. Then all of the insertion cases in this debate were the insertion of English noun in Bahasa Indonesia as the ML. Some findings can be found in table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 List of Insertion on the Second Debate

No Utterances Types

A B C

1

Membangun sistem, seperti yang sudah sering saya sampaikan pakai budgeting, pakai audit, pakai

e-purchasing.

 2

Tutup kebocoran, amankan kekayaan Negara, dapat uang tunai cash, uang cash tunai ini kita investasikan kesehatan dan pendidikan.

 3 Inilah yang saya kira memang semua Negara melakukan itu,

ada barrier. 

The data from the table 4.5 was gathered from the checklist sheet of the second debate. The researcher was identified the data based on the Muysken theory

(2000). To discover the insertion which happened in the second debate, the researcher would give an example:

“Inilah yang saya kira memang semua Negara melakukan itu, ada

barrier. ” (JW, 15th of June 2014)

“I think this is the thing that every Country did, there is a barrier” (JW, 15th of June 2014)

From the example above, it can be seen that there is a noun „barrier‟ which is inserted in the sentence. Actually to prevent code-mixing the word „barrier‟ can be translated into Bahasa Indonesia as „hambatan‟. There are only some examples from the second debate since the total number of code-mixing in this debate is also too little.

The third debate, which was conducted on 22nd of June 2014, had theme Politik Internasional dan Ketahanan Nasional (International Politics and National Security) got 40 cases of insertion. In all the cases, the Matrix Language (ML) is still Bahasa Indonesia since the debate was conducted in Bahasa Indonesia. Some examples will be shown in table 4.6.

Table 4.6 List of Insertion on Third Debate

No Utterances Types

A B C

1

Yang kedua, lewat moderenisasi alat-alat pertahanan termasuk didalamnya pertahanan cyber, dan

pertahanan hybrid.



2

Artinya bahwa drone ini selain kita memperbaiki alutsista kita juga kita pakai untuk bukan hanya untuk pertahanan tetapi juga hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan ketahanan ekonomi kita.



3 Ini masalah trust sehingga terjadi dalam beberapa bulan yang lalu masalah penyadapan.

Segmen 6

M: Hadirin dan pemirsa yang saya hormati, kita masuki segmen yang keenam, atau segmen yang terakhir. Segmen keenam terdiri dari dua sesi. Sesi yang pertama para calon masih memiliki kesempatan saling bertanya dan menanggapi ada dua bagian, dan sesi kedua adalah penyataan penutup atau closing statement dari masing-masing pasangan. Waktu untuk bertanya satu menit, dan menanggapi dua menit.

Saya akan memberikan kesempatan kepada Pak Jokowi-JK untuk menyampaikkan pertanyaan. Waktunya satu menit, dipersilakan!

JW: Pak Prabowo, Pak Hatta, saat ini kita dihadapkan pada ancaman bencana ekologis, yang salah satunya disebabkan oleh kerusakan hutan. Laju penggundulan hutan di negara kita adalah tertinggi di dunia. Bagaimana strategi bapak menghentikan laju kerusakan hutan ini? Terima kasih.

M: Terima kasih, Pak Prabowo dipersilahkan untuk menjawab waktunya dua menit, silakan!

PS: Baik Pak Jokowi ini masalah yang sangat mendesak bagi bangsa kita. Strategi yang kami usung adalah yang pertama adalah untuk mengikutsertakan masyarakat, rakyat yang tinggal di hutan, dan di pinggir-pinggir hutan kita berdayakan melalui kelompok-kelompok petani hutan dan kita berikan kesempatan ikut serta dalam program-program ekonomi, pemberdayaan kekuatan mereka.

Sehingga, mereka sekaligus diberi harapan hidup, nafkah hidup, dan penyuluhan, dan pendidikan. Sehingga, mereka tidak merambah hutan.

Kemudian, harus ada memang pengetatan pengawasan dengan menggunakan satelit dan pengawasan macam-macam. Kita bisa memonitor usaha-usaha untuk melaksanakan illegal logging, ya, penambangan liar, dan sebagainya. Kemudian, sangsi yang keras, kepada perusahan-perusahan yang melanggar tata kelola hutan. Saya kira itu yang perlu kita laksanakan, juga aparat-aparat penegak hukum harus kita tatar kembali, supaya mereka ikut menjaga hutan kita. Karena, hutan kita sungguh-sungguh adalah masa depan kita semua. Harus kita jaga bersama-sama, dan untuk itu harus ada interfensi pemerintah secara besar-besaran dalam hal ini. Ini bagian dari pada strategi besar kita, untuk kita benahi hutan dan lingkungan hidup kita, terima kasih.

M: Baik, Pak Hatta ada tambahan? Singkat! Baik. Saya persilahkan Pak Jokowi-JK untuk menanggapi jawaban Pak Prabowo waktunya dua menit, silakan!

JW: Terima kasih, tata ruang kita sebetulnya hampir selesai, dan ini harus segera diselesaikan. Sehingga jelas mana yang hutan lindung, mana yang hutan alam, mana yang hutan produksi, dan mana hutan yang bisa dikonversi.

Sekarang ini karena kita tidak mempunyai one map policy, tidak mempunyai kebijakan satu peta, sehingga yang terjadi adalah sebuah tumpang tindih. Hutan lindung, diberikan konsesi pertambangan, ada hutan lindung diberikan konsesi untuk perkebunan. Ada hutan lindung diberi konsesi untuk sebuah produksi. Saya kira kekeliruan-kekeliruan seperti ini disebabkan karena, kita tidak mempunyai satu peta. One map ini sangat penting sekali.

Saya berikan contoh di sebuah provinsi di Kalimantan, saya tidak menyebutkan yang seletan, yang timur, atau yang tengah. Ada 753 kasus hanya di dalam satu propinsi. Karena apa, tumpang tindih antara tambang dan hutan lindung. Antara tambang dan perkebunan, antara perkebunan dan hutan lindung. Kalau ini tidak segera diselesaikan, hutan kita akan sedikit demi sedikit atau banyak mulai akan digerus untuk kepentingan-kepentingan yang lain.

Karena, peta kita di lapangan tidak memberikan kejelasan mengenai itu. Mungkin di dalam peta hanya terpaut satu senti tapi, di lapangan bisa berhektar-hektar hutan kita habis hanya karena masalah gambar yang dipakai dari tangan, perkiraan dari tangan. Tetapi kalau one map policy, satu peta itu bisa diselesaikan, saya meyakini bahwa hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan kerusakan hutan ini bisa segera diselesaikan.

M: Terima kasih, Pak Jokowi waktunya habis. Pak Prabowo Hatta punya kesempatan untuk menanggapi balik waktunya dua menit, dipersilakan!

HR: Terima kasih. Tadi Pak Jokowi mengatakan banyaknya izin di hutan lindung. Tahun 2003, ada 13 perusahaan asing diberikan izin untuk di hutan lindung. Apa pandangan bapak terhadap itu? Yang kedua, melalui Perpres 41 tahun 2003-2004. Yang kedua, setuju kah Pak JK saya kebetulan ketua tim renegosiasi pada waktu Menko. Sulit sekali merenegosiasi kontrak-kontrak yang tidak berkeadilan contoh, Freeport.

M: Pak Hatta, Pak Hatta menanggapi atas, menanggapi balik, dipersilakan menanggapi balik atas tanggapan dari Pak Jokowi.

HR: Saya, saya sedang menanggapi hutan lindung tadi, bapak.

M: Baik, silakan, silakan Pak Hatta.

HR: Saya sedang menanggapi hutan lindung tadi. Iya, iya, saya sedang menanggapi hutan lindung tadi. Yang dikatakan bahwa, secara spasial bahwa itu kadang-kadang tidak sesuai dengan petanya.

Nah, pertanyaan saya tadi, ya, apa yang disebutkan tadi itu bahwa, ada perusahan-perusahan yang diberikan ke hutan lindung. Apakah bapak setuju ya? Tanggapan saya, tadi kan mengatakan tidak banyak perusahaan yang diberikan di hutan lindung. Apakah dengan adanya perusahan-perusahan di hutan lindung itu bapak akan mencabut atau merenegosiasi kembali? Terima kasih.

M: Baik, tidak ada kesempatan untuk menjawab karena, ini adalah tanggapan balik. Tapi, terima kasih Pak Hatta. Kita lanjutkan bagian kedua dari sesi pertama segmen keenam. Saya akan memberikan kesempatan kepada Pak Prabowo-Hatta untuk menyampaikan pertanyaan waktunya satu menit, dipersilakan!

HR: Terima kasih. Pak Jusuf Kalla, tadi banyak masalah mafia migas. Setujukah bapak dengan pandangan saya bahwa, setiap perpanjangan kontrak karena, saya tidak setuju istilah perpanjangan, yang ada renegosiasi. Banyak sekali justru perpanjangan itu merugikan kita.

Contohnya misalkan, Freeport, yang seharusnya punya saham kita 51 persen bisa kita dapatkan hilang. Dan kontrak-kontrak migas lainya yang diberikan perpanjangan tanpa memperhitungkan bahwa sebetulnya itu, ownership-nya sudah kepada kita. Nah, apakah Bapak menganggap, setuju tidak bahwa semua itu harus kita lakukan investigasi terhadap perpanjangan-perpanjangan kontrak seperti itu agar kita lakukan pengecekan ulang? Terima kasih.

M: Terima kasih Pak Hatta, dipersilahkan Pak JK untuk memberikan jawaban waktunya dua menit, silakan!

JK: Saya Pak Hatta sangat setuju untuk dibikin investigasi. Kita lihat Freeport ada bedanya Freeport. Coba lihat sejarahnya di Freeport siapa yang pernah memiliki saham Freeport dan ke mana saham itu? Bapak boleh cek, investigasi karena, anda yang minta investigasi bukan saya. Kedua, bapak lihat Newmont. Ke mana saham Newmont sekarang? kepada siapa sekarang yang pegang Newmont itu? Dulu nasional, tapi sekarang siapa? berapa devidennya yang masuk ke Newmont itu? karena itu saya sangat setuju untuk infestegasi seperti itu. Itu saja pertanyaanya.

M: Pak Jokowi akan menambahkan?

JW: Melanjutkan apa yang disampaikan Pak JK, investigasi itu perlu. Artinya apa, sebetulnya tempat-tempat yang berkaitan dengan tambang itu memang banyak kelompok kepentingan disitu. Banyak kelompok kepentingan sebetulnya semua orang juga sudah tau, semua orang sudah ngerti, siapa yang dapat, siapa yang dapat, semuanya ngerti. Kita ini punya niat ngga untuk menyelesaikan itu? Kita punya kemauan tidak untuk menyelesaikan itu? masalahnya hanya itu.

Kalau hanya renegosiasi saja saya kira, bisa-bisa saja kita lakukan renegosiasi tetapi, kalau kelompok-kelompok kepentingan ini masih ada, dan itu mengatur ya sampai kapan pun kita akan seperti ini terus. Oleh sebab itu, sejak awal kami sampaikan bahwa kerja sama kami, koalisi kami adalah tanpa syarat, ini komitmen di depan yang ingin kami tunjukkan. Sehingga kami tidak ingin tersandra, kami tidak ingin terbebani oleh hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan masa lalu, dengan kontrak-kontrak yang tadi sudah disebutkan.

M: Terima kasih Pak Jokowi. Pak Prabowo-Hatta silahkan menanggapi atas jawaban dari Pak Jokowi-JK, dipersilahkan waktunya dua menit. Silakan Pak Hatta!

HR: Terima kasih, artinya bapak setuju dengan renegosiasi tersebut?

JK: Investigasi pertanyaanya, ya?

HR: Kepada Pak Jokowi terlebih dahulu. Artinya setuju terhadap renegosiasi? Persoalanya adalah, bagai mana upaya kita agar renegosiasi itu betul-betul dapat menguntungkan sebesar-besarnya buat kita, bukan kita melihat, tadi dikatakan bahwa saya tidak setuju, kalau dikatakan ada kelompok-kelompok kepentingan justru kelompok kepentingan itulah yang harus kita selesaikan, kita tuntaskan, dengan transparansi dan akuntabilitas.

Kalau kita mengatakan bahwa ada kelompok-kelompok kepentingan sehingga kita tidak bisa melakukan renegosiasi, itu tidak berjalan. Kami sangat konsisten terus berupaya keras untuk melakukan renegosiasi kontrak apapun juga karena, itu menyangkut kepentingan bangsa kita, menyangkut penerimaan negara kita, untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat. Jadi, jangan ada istilah bahwa karena ada kepentingan-kepentingan maka, kita tidak bisa berbuat apa-apa. Tidak bisa, apapun, siapapun dia, yang menyangkut kepentingan, yang merugikan negara harus kita sikat. Terima kasih.

M: Pak Prabowo akan menambahkan? Masih ada waktu, silakan singkat!

PS: Saya ingin memberi tambahan sambil juga mengucapkan terima kasih kepada pemerintah Susilo Bambang Yudoyono yang tanggal 1 Juli berhasil tanda tangan renegosiasi kontrak tangguh. Dari kontrak yang merugikan bangsa Indonesia akhirnya harga bisa naik dan kita sekarang diuntungkan 250 triliun sampai selesai, terima kasih.

Waktunya habis. Baik, Pak Jokowi-Jk punya kesempatan untuk memberikan tanggapan balik. Tanggapan balik waktunya dua menit, silakan!

Ya, yang pertama, pertama tadi soal Newmont, karena tadi memang bertanya. Jaman waktu saya masih dipemerintahan sama-sama dipemerintahan, keputusan kita ialah saham Newmont itu diberikan kepada BUMN, ke negara sesuai pasal 33. Tapi, begitu tidak ada, menurut informasi Menko Perekonomian memutuskan memberikan kepada daerah dan swasta yang sekarang tidak jelas, karena tidak pernah membayar deviden menurut informasi dari NTB dan sebagainya.

Karena itu, saya setuju sekali investigasi tentang apa, tangguh, Pak. Justru itulah kontrak itu berbunyi bahwa, tiap empat tahun harus dinegosiasi. Jadi, justru pada tahun 2008, Pak Hatta masih ingat saya berbicara pada Presiden China, Hu Jintao. Saya sendiri datang ke Beijing siap negosiasi tetapi, begitu saya tinggalkan tidak ada negosiasi apapun dilaksanakan oleh pemerintah.

Bahwa kemudian, empat tahun kemudian itulah bunyi kontrak yang ditanda tangani pada waktu itu. Bahwa tiap empat tahun harus negosiasi, jadi sebenarnya tidak ada yang spesial. Bahwa naiknya iya, naiknya iya Kita terima kasih juga naiknya itu. Tapi, itulah jalan kontrak itu berbunyi begitu. Supaya celah jangan terjadi kerugian itu masalahnya tentang tangguh.

M: Baik, Pak Jokowi akan menambahkan? Cukup? Baik, kita kita akhiri sesi debat dari segmen keenam. Kita masuki sesi kedua saya akan mempersilakan pasangan calon urut nomor dua pak Jokowi-JK untuk menyampaikan pernyataan penutup atau closing statement. Waktunya dua menit, dipersilakan.

Closing Statement

JW: Bapak ibu, saudara-saudara sekalian, sebangsa dan setanah air. Kita tahu semuanya, negara kita Indonesia mempunyai masalah yang banyak, mempunyai problem yang banyak. Tapi kita meyakini bahwa setiap problem itu ada jalan keluarnya, setiap problem itu pasti ada solusinya karena kita mempunyai pakar-pakar yang ahli di bidang itu.

Tapi memang, yang selalu menghalangi dan itulah yang harus kita kerjakan adalah kelompok-kelompok kepentingan tadi, ya mafia tadi. Oleh sebab itu, Jokowi-JK sejak awal menyatakan kerja sama koalisi tanpa syarat. Kami ingin hadir untuk membawa perubahan, kami ingin hadir untuk membawa terobosan, kami ingin hadir untuk membawa sebuah langkah-langkah yang nyata. Terima kasih kami sampaikan kepada seluruh kader, kepada seluruh relawan, kepada seluruh rakyat Indonesia, yang sudah bekerja keras untuk sebuah cita-cita bersama kita.

Dan ingin saya tegaskan sekali lagi. Bahwa kami ini lahir, dibesarkan, dididik, dan bekerja di Indonesia. Kami seutuhnya Indonesia. Dan juga perlu kami tegaskan, bahwa kami Jokowi-JK hanya tunduk pada konstitusi Indonesia dan kehendak rakyat. Dan kami Jokowi-JK selalu setia kepada negara Republik Indonesia. Mari bersama kita berdo‟a “Rabbana atina fiddunya hasanah wa fil akhiroti hasanah waqina „adzabannar”. Wasalamualaikum Wr Wb. Salam dua jari.

M: Terima kasih, Pak Jokowi. Terima kasih, waktunya habis, terima kasih. Baik, saya persilakan Bapak Prabowo untuk menyampaikan pernyataan penutup, waktunya dua menit. Silakan.

PS: Bapak-bapak ibu-ibu, saudara-saudara sekalian, sebangsa dan setanah air di manapun Anda berada pada malam hari ini. Kita malam hari ini mengakhiri kampanye politik yang cukup panjang. Kita melakukan kampanye ini sebagai tanggung jawab konstitusi kita. Kita ingin membangun demokrasi yang kuat. Pada tanggal 9 Juli yang akan datang, rakyat Indonesia akan memilih pemimpin-pemimpinnya. Kami Prabowo-Hatta dan koalisi yang mengusung kami, berjanji kepada rakyat Indonesia, bahwa apabila kami menerima mandat dari rakyat

Indonesia kami akan bekerja sekeras tenaga kami untuk mengutamakan kesejahteraan, kemakmuran, dan kedaulatan bangsa Indonesia.

Kita ingin membangun bangsa yang terhormat, bangsa yang berdiri di atas kaki kita sendiri. Bangsa yang produktif, tidak hanya membeli barang dari negara lain, tapi bangsa yang bermartabat yang bisa juga membuat dan menjual barang-barangnya sendiri.

Kami koalisi Merah-Putih yang mengusung Prabowo-Hatta akan berjuang untuk Indonesia dan untuk seluruh rakyat Indonesia, hidup sejahtera, hidup dengan layak, sebagaimana diharapkan oleh pendiri-pendiri bangsa kita, dan sebagaimana dicita-citakan oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia. Terima kasih seluruh rakyat Indonesia, dari kami. Kami juga akan menghormati keputusan rakyat Indonesia apapun keputusan itu kami akan hormati demi negara, bangsa, dan rakyat kita yang kita cintai. Wasalamualaikum Wr Wb.

M: Baik, baik, terima kasih Pak Prabowo. Demikianlah hadirin, kita beri tepuk tangan untuk dua pasang calon kita.

Baik, hadirin dan pemirsa yang saya hormati. Semoga debat pada malam hari ini menjadi inspirasi dan referensi bagi Anda semua untuk menentukan pilihan pada 9 Juli yang akan datang.

Saya Sudharto P Hadi, menyampaikan penghargaan dan terima kasih kepada kedua pasang calon, kepada seluruh hadirin, kepada seluruh pemirsa dimanapun berada, kepada KPU yang sudah memfasilitasi. Mohon maaf kalau ada yang kurang berkenan.

Izinkan saya mengakhiri acara debat ini dengan sebuah pantun. Bunga mawar bunga melati, tumbuh subur di halaman rumah, kita sukseskan Pemilu Presiden 9 Juli untuk masa depan Indonesia yang lebih cerah.