Makalah Sociolinguistics [PDF]

Citation preview

Language Choice, Bilingual, Multilingual, Code Switching and Code Mixing



Presented by: Rahmatang Ana Sapitri Syahidin Wahyudin Muhammad Alfarikki Denisa Nurul Alvizyar Nurul Husna Elfridawati Dewa Ayu Nitiari Mayangsari



ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION HALU OLEO UNIVERSITY KENDARI



2019 A. Language Choice Language is an important factor of human communication because it is a good sign of interaction as the intended message will be conveyed and fully understood. People in several parts of the world, are inhabited by different linguistic families and groups. This characteristics of language within a given area or locality also means that people's social and economic structures are also varied. Dorian (1981)(cited in Adams.Matue,Ongarora and Adams ( 2012;p.99) state that the diversity of languages leads to unavoidable concept of bilingualism among the local speakers. It is then expected that instances of partial and complete language shift shall occur and even diaglossia may set in at some point in time. There is a well-documented tendency for some speech communities to change over time from ones first language to another (Gal, 1979). Language choice is when the speaker chooses what language to use in particular situation in bilingual or multilingual communities. "Who speaks what language to whom and when" Fishman (1965 cited in Al surmi.2000). Language choice divided into two types; • Marked-the language used would not be normally expected in a certain context • Unmarked-language used is the one that would be expected in that context (Al surmi.2000;p.4) Although most of the world's population can speak only one language, a sizeable minority is able to communicate in two or more. Of the world's 750 million speakers of English, for example, only 300 million use it as their first or native tongue. The remaining 450 million speak it as a second or third language. Whenever speakers of two or more languages come together, a decision has to be made about which of these languages is to be used. It may be thought that the factors affecting choice of language are few and simple, but such is not the case. Often no satisfactory explanation can be given as to why speakers make the choices they do. Sociolinguists have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of bilingualism and the complex language switching patterns that often accompany it. Many bilingual speakers are able to switch from language to language with ease, sometimes in midsentence. Attempts to define such patterns have not, however, met with much success.



Research reports on the subject are cluttered with such obscure terms as 'diglossia', 'domain', 'code-switching' and 'ethnolinguistic vitality', but reduced to the level of a layman's understanding, the less than original conclusion would seem to be that choice of language is dictated primarily by the milieu in which the speaker finds himself. It is only fair to say that research into this subject has been hampered by the inherent unreliability of the information-gathering methods employed, the two most common being analysis of tape-recorded speech events, and questionnaires in which subjects are asked about their linguistic behaviour patterns. The problem with the first of these methods is that the presence of a researcher, or even the suspicion that the conversation is being recorded, is usually sufficient to affect spontaneity. Covert recording of speech events is of course possible, but severely limits the range of available speech event environments. Questionnaires, likewise, are inherently unreliable. Subjects may not be fully conscious of their own language usage patterns, or may wish to portray them in a socially or culturally favourable light. In every language survey of India, for example, two or three thousand people (0.0004% of the population) invariably claim that Sanskrit is their first language. Most research has focused on bilingual subjects, but true bilingualism — native-speaker fluency in both languages — is not a prerequisite for the exercise of language choice. Anyone who can speak two or more languages well enough to communicate his or her thoughts and emotions is free (if circumstances allow) to exercise choice. Indeed it may be possible to gain a few more insights into the phenomenon of language choice by deliberately not focusing on bilingual subjects, and by widening the scope of investigation to include all polyglots — the term 'polyglot' here being used in its widest sense, meaning someone who can speak several languages, though not necessarily with the same degree of fluency.



It is with this in mind that the following comments are offered, not as definitive conclusions based on exhaustive and systematic research, but as a few tentative conjectures drawn from personal experiences and observations. It may help to clarify the problem if we begin by suggesting that language choice is subject to two categories of factors: preferences and constraints. A simple model of language choice might recognize the presence of only one factor in each category. It might be thought, for example, that someone with reasonable fluency in several languages would nevertheless choose to speak his mother tongue wherever possible, that being the language with which he is most familiar and comfortable. This natural tendency would be constrained by only one factor: linguistic congruity. A native speaker of Hungarian, for instance, might prefer to use that language wherever possible, but if he should himself in an environment where there are no other Hungarian speakers — in a foreign country, for example — he would be obliged to use his second or third language. A simple model such as the above does, in fact, serve to explain a large number of language-choice events, but it is woefully inadequate in defining many others. Polyglots do not always prefer to use their native language, and the constraint of congruity does not apply to situations where the participants in a conversation share a knowledge of several languages. A number of factual anecdotes may help to illustrate the complexity of the problem. 1. A group of people attending a party are holding a conversation in Polish. The Scottish hostess approaches the group to ask how everyone is enjoying the party, and the conversation switches to English. Presently the hostess leaves to talk with other guests, and the group continues to talk in English for several minutes. After a short pause in the conversation one of the members of the group reverts to Polish, and the rest of the group follows suit. 2. A foreigner visiting a Japanese department store approaches one of the shop assistants and asks for something in Japanese. The customer's Japanese is grammatically correct and well pronounced, and the assistant has no difficulty in



understanding what the person has said. Nevertheless she chooses to reply in English. For several minutes the conversation continues in two languages, the customer speaking in Japanese, and the assistant persisting in a use of English. 3. On a flight from Honolulu to Tokyo, two young Oriental ladies are discussing, in elementary accented Japanese, the friends they will meet and the shopping they will do when they get to Japan. Their conversation is interrupted when a cabin attendant comes along and asks them, in English, whether they would care for some light refreshment. Both of them answer in fluent unaccented American English, and after the cabin attendant has gone to attend to their order, they switch back to Japanese. A simple single-element preference/constraint model cannot fully explain the language choices illustrated in these three examples. It does not always follow that a bilingual or polyglot will prefer to speak his native language, or will feel most comfortable using it. Some polyglots prefer, for a number of reasons, to use their second or third language. The children of immigrants, for example, often feel antipathy towards the language of their parents' homeland, and prefer to use that of their host country, even though they may not yet be completely fluent in that language. As they grow older, the language of the host country usually becomes dominant, leading in some instances to a partial or even complete loss of the heritage tongue. Small children are particularly sensitive to peer rejection, and those of ethnic minorities are prone to over-emphasize their conformity with group standards of dress, behaviour, and language. In many cases, however, the period of late adolescence brings a new awareness of cultural and ethnic identity, and the mother tongue may acquire a strong symbolic value. The sons of, for example, Sikh immigrants to the United Kingdom or Canada may, during their years in elementary or middle school, strive to suppress their ethnic and religious identity in the interests of group solidarity, but a growing awareness of discrimination may eventually lead them to turn away from a society which they feel is not prepared to accept them, and seek to redefine their identity by a return to the dress, religion, and language of their parents or grandparents. In the case of Sikh males this would entail adopting the distinctive Sikh unshorn hair style, the wearing



of, among other things, a turban and steel bracelet, and the preferential use of the Punjabi language. The children of Caribbean immigrants may exhibit the same pattern of rejection and subsequent espousal of a specific variety of English, as opposed to a discrete language. They may consciously suppress the British, Canadian, or American speech patterns they have acquired over the years — from birth in the case of those born in the host country — and attempt instead to mimic those of the Caribbean island from which their family came. The same reaction can also be seen among the children of groups which do not experience the same degree of discrimination as Asian, African, or Caribbean minorities living in Western countries. The children of East European immigrants — usually indistinguishable from the community at large — may still feel the attraction of their heritage culture as they grow older, not because they feel rejected by the society in which they have been raised, but because of the narcissistic appeal of identifying with a disparate group. Assuming that the two ladies in the third of our examples were second- or third-generation Japanese living in Hawaii (a not unreasonable assumption in the circumstances), it may have been this kind of cultural and ethnic awareness that led them to conduct their conversation in a language which was clearly not their strongest. Some polyglots may feel that one or other of the languages they speak (not necessarily the dominant one) is better suited to the expression of certain ideas or emotions, and they may prefer to choose that language whenever the situation warrants. Certain languages may be perceived as 'soft', better able to express emotions and feelings, whilst other 'hard' languages may be thought more capable of expressing concepts and ideas. Language choice may also be affected by utilitarian considerations. A speaker may feel that use of a particular language will place him in an advantageous position either within a group or within a wider social context. If his antagonists in a discussion or argument are less fluent than he is, this will clearly serve to give him a valuable edge. If the use of a specific language is perceived as socially advantageous



— the use of English in India is an obvious example — this would be another factor contributing to its preferential use. In some cases a speaker might perceive an advantage in the use of a language with which he is less than familiar — to feign ignorance, for instance, or to cut short an unwelcome dialogue. The perceived advantage does not have to be vis-à-vis other individuals. It may be for purely personal considerations that a person chooses to speak a particular language. A student of a foreign language may prefer to use that language whenever possible, with the sole intention of improving his ability. This may have been the reason behind the persistent unilateral use of English by the shop assistant in the second example. We have already mentioned the most common constraint upon the use of a specific language, that of congruity. Communication is only possible if both speakers share the same language, and there is little to be gained from addressing someone in a language which they do not understand. The only possible exception might be the early stages of direct-method language teaching. A related constraint is that of linguistic etiquette. There is an almost universal taboo upon the use of a language which might exclude one or more members of a group from a discussion, even if the subject of that discussion has no direct relevance to that person or persons. A group of several French speakers may, for example, be discussing plans for a farewell party for one of their workmates who is about to retire. Another person, one who does not work at the same company, who does not know the gentleman in question, and who will not be invited to the party, joins the group. This newcomer, moreover, does not speak French. It is now incumbent upon the group to continue their discussion in a language which that person can understand — English or German, perhaps. Having to change the language of the discussion to one which may be a second or third language for a majority of the members can, of course, have a stultifying effect upon the course of the discussion, making it more difficult to express thoughts and ideas. In this case, however, the exclusion constraint takes precedence over the



language preference of the group majority. In extreme cases the requirement for a common language might force all of the speakers to adopt second or third languages — if the newcomer in the example given above were a native speaker of Arabic, for example. The search for a common language may sometimes prove unsuccessful, and a group will have to choose the language which allows the participation of the greatest number of people. Before switching to that language, however, it is considered polite to apologize to the person or persons who will be excluded, and to obtain their consent. The first of the three examples given earlier would appear to be a good illustration of this particular constraint. The members of the group at the party were all of Polish descent, and Polish was the language they chose to speak among themselves. When they became aware of the presence of their hostess, they felt obliged to continue their conversation in English, opening the way for her possible participation. The interesting variation shown in this example is the way the conversation continued in English for some time after the hostess had moved on to chat with other guests. Most of the members of the group had lived in the United Kingdom for many years, and were fluent in English. There was no linguistic pressure to switch back to Polish at the earliest possible opportunity, and perhaps some of the members may have felt that such a hasty return would have been rather indecorous. One other constraint deserves to be mentioned. Various psychological factors sometimes preclude an easy and spontaneous switch to another language. It may be that two or more speakers have become accustomed to conversing among themselves in a particular language, and feel extremely uncomfortable having to change to another. Yet other speakers may find the act of language-switching difficult in itself. Whereas some bilinguals or polyglots can shift with consummate ease between languages, even in mid-sentence, there are those whose language choice is reactionary, a reflexive response to the language in which they are addressed, or the language environment in which they find themselves. One interesting example of the latter constraint was furnished by an Italian consular official who once told the author that he could speak twelve languages, and a



thirteenth which he refused to use. That thirteenth was Serbo-Croatian, a language he had been forced to use on summer visits to elderly maiden aunts in Yugoslavia, and which for him was forever associated with some of the most dreary and unpleasant memories of his childhood. At the end of the Second World War, the diplomat was employed by the Italian national railway, and given the task of coordinating the repatriation of thousands of Allied soldiers. One day a Polish soldier visited his office, and the conversation was conducted in German, the language they had used on many previous occasions. After several minutes of discussion, the Polish soldier remarked that he had heard that the Italian could speak Polish, and asked him if this were true. The official confirmed that he could indeed speak Polish, and after a moment's hesitation, the conversation continued in German. Several minutes later the Polish soldier once again asked if the Italian could really speak Polish, and the answer was the same. Towards the end of the conversation the soldier repeated his question for a third time, clearly dissatisfied with he answers he was getting. When the Italian answered 'yes' for the third time, the Polish soldier asked him rather bluntly, "Well then, why don't you?" The Italian replied, "Because you're speaking German, that's why." From what we have said so far, it should be clear that a large number of factors influence language choice, and many factors may work either with or against each other, producing a complex web of interaction which makes the task of describing any one language-choice event extremely difficult. The suggested division of factors into two categories may be of some help, but it must be recognized that some factors may exhibit the characteristics of both preferences and constraints, making it impossible to locate them satisfactorily in either of the two categories. It is difficult to determine at which point a negative preference — an intense dislike of a particular language, for example — becomes a constraint. A positive constraint, likewise, may exhibit some of the characteristics of a preference. A more useful approach might be to try and plot these factors somewhere along an axis which represents a continuous gradation between positive forces directing choice towards a specific language, and negative forces directing choice away from that language. Finally, it needs to be recognized that language choice events do not exist in a vacuum. Language is, after all, a medium for interaction and communication between



people, and the use of language will reflect the infinite complexity of human relationships. B. Bilingual and Multilingual



C. Code Switching Code Switching is described as a skill of the bilingual speaker Code-switching is a term in linguistics referring to using more than one language or variety in conversation. Sometimes the bilingual speakers getting problem when they having a conversation with another bilingual, so they switches their language from code to another in the construction of sentence to make the interlocutor understand, sometimes they do it with the same language background and it may do so many times. Code switching is the one of alternative way to bilingual of two or more languages in the same conversation. Hymes (1974) defines code-switching as “a common term for alternative use of two or more languages, varieties of a language or even speech styles” while Bokamba (1989) defines code-switching is the mixing of words, phrases and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub) systems across sentence boundaries within the same speech event. In the class, when the teacher teaches a foreign language code switching also become strategies learning in order to develop the students skill in English language. In the beginning of meeting the teacher uses target language when they explain the material and then they switch again into Indonesia to make sure understood for the students. The student uses the target language as much as possible but reverts to their native language for any element of an utterance that they are unable to produce in the target language. For example: “Good morning class….” , well my students, today we would like to study about Code switching…. (the beginning of the class)



“Selamat pagi kelas (anak-anak)…”, hari ini kita akan belajar tentang alih bahasa….. Excuse me ms… I want to ask some question! (students asking) Permisi bu..saya ingi bertanya! “Actually I agree about your statement, but I think it is better if….” Saya setuju dengan pendapat kamu, tapi mungkin lebih baik jika..”



Generally, there are different perspectives on code-switching. A major approach in sociolinguistics focuses on the social motivations for switching, a line of inquiry concentrating both on immediate discourse factors such as lexical need and the topic and setting of the discussion, and on more distant factors such as speaker or group identity, and relationship-building (solidarity). Code-switching may also be reflective of the frequency with which an individual uses particular expressions from one or the other language in his daily communications; thus, an expression from one language may more readily come to mind than the equivalent expression in the other language Code-switching can occur between sentences (intersentential) or within a single sentence (intrasentential). There are four major types of switching: (a) Tag-switching, in which tags and certain set phrases in one language are inserted into an utterance otherwise in another For example: Teacher: “benar, that’s a good answer”! Tabipun, Now we come to the sociolinguistics class. “Bagus, good job Santi”! Write geh, do not only read! The words “that’s a good answer” can be considered a tag. Sometimes, emblematic



code-switching or



tag switching



can



take



the form



of



intrasentential switching where categorical equivalence exists between the two languages involved. (b) Intrasentential switching, in which switches occur within a clause or sentence boundary. It can take the form such as, code changing, code mixing, insertion and congruent lexicalizations. For example: Menurutku that’s a good idea! “open your matrik book and kerjakan page 10”! Can you please tell me kalimat apa ini? I’ll give you a gift kalau kalian bisa jawab



From example above includes code-changing or complete shifts to another language system at major constituent boundaries. (c) Intersentential switching, in which a change of language occurs at sentence levels, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other. For example: T: “Have you done your homework, S:Sudah,Ms! T : May I see? S : ini Ms! T : look at the picture and fill the blanks. S : yang mana Ms? T : On page 30 From example above intersentential code switches was to relate speech that had already occurred in other conversations in English. And it more frequent than intrasentential. (d) Intra-word switching, in which a change occurs within a word boundary. For example: ujian hari ini open book! Listeningnya pake speaker Jurusan Lesson Plan kamu dah siap belum? Scoring system IAIN seperti itu 50% final test, 30% mid test, dan 20% daily performances In other hand, Milroy and Pieter (1995: 8) define code switching “as a term ‘intra sentential’ used for switches within the sentence, in contrast with ‘intersentential’ used for switches between sentences”. Although some commentators have seen code-switching as reflecting a lack of language ability, most contemporary scholars consider code-switching to be a normal and natural product of interaction between the bilingual or multilingual speaker’s languages.



D. Code Mixing Code-mixing is the other phenomenon closely related to code-switching. Code mixing takes place without a change of topic and can involve various levels of language such as phonology, morphology, grammatical structures or lexical items. We could not avoid that the first language is a big effect in second language. Interaction and mixing between languages result in various languages. Most of the people in the society mix their language with other language by borrowing or using pieces of foreign languages even sometimes they are still influenced by first language. Kachru in Nusjam (2004) defines code mixing as the term refers to the use of one or more languages for consistent transfer of linguistic units from one language into another, and by such a language mixture developing a new restricted or not so restricted code of linguistic interaction. Related to Kachru defines above, we can see the reality in the class, when students saying something in English, they mix some language in the sentence that they don’t know how to say in English it means combine the language between Indonesia and English. For example: “have you done your homework hasan? Yes Ms, saya sudah kerja my homework.” Excuse me mom, kemarin I was sick. From example above, the student use the peace of English word to answer the teacher’s question, it because the student does not know how to say in English. But grammatically the sentence of students is also suitable for grammar in English.



Mixing Points : V & Obj. NP Find the best answer dan lanjut ke next page NP & NP Kalau mau lulus, Listening skill dan speaking skillnya harus bagus Prep & Obj. NP Baca teksnya on the previous page Ind bound morp & Engl free morpheme T: Ayo Didi di-mix aja dengan bahasa Indonesia S: Maaf



Ms, saya sudah nge-



blank N&V Lihat task 1 and do it Conj & NP Judul and content jurnalnya menarik Eng Adj & Ind Adj Simple dan sederhana tulisannya



Blom and Gumpers as quoted by Gibbons (1987:80) they say that code mixing is behavior element fom one code become to some extent integrated into another. One code, the base code, is normally dominant, and speakers use the second code in additive fashion. Elements from the latter code tend to be some extent assimilated and consequently are used less consciously.Jacobson (1990: 15) has proposed a number of formal and functional constraints on mixing two or more codes. He says that the constraint relate to the Sociological (context situation), psychological (cognition, production, and processing of the mixed code), and linguistic (interaction of the two or more grammar) dimension of code mixing. From describing above we can say that code mixing is using two or more language in the same sentence or discourse but one language more dominant, and it related with the social context as a function of choosing the code.



E. The Differences Concept Between Code Mixing And Code Switching When we discuss about the differences between code switching and code mixing, both of them have the strong similarities, even we are difficult to find the difference between them. The similarities of them just it the function when we use two or more languages as a variant language in speech community. But the differences are in code switching, switch language event or variety of languages by the bilingual because of certain reason and consciously. While code mixing, the use of pieces of another language to one language that is needed probably, has the function and it is not considered as a wrong or deviation. Like in our country, a bilingual sometimes slipped a pieces of language in conversation it can be said he or she did code mixing. Thelander quoted by Chaer and Leony (2004:115) tried to differ between code switching and code mixing. He said that code switching is speech event is became there is a switched from one clause of language to clause of other language. While, when speech event become, the clauses or phrases is consist of hybrid clauses and hybrid phrases and all of they are not support each other is called as Code mixing. From the previous study of experts to differ between code mixing and code switching it is difficult to make differentiation both of them, because there are still the some concepts of rule that have to paid attention to make it clear.