CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

A. Background In linguistics, code-switching is the concurrent use of more than one language, or language variety, in conversation. Multilingualspeople who speak more than one language sometimes use elements of multiple languages in conversing with each other. Thus, codeswitching is the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the syntax and phonology of each variety. Code-switching is distinct from other language contact phenomena, such as borrowing, pidgins and creoles, loan translation (calques), and language transfer (language interference). Speakers form and establish a pidgin language when two or more speakers who do not speak a common language form an intermediate, third language. On the other hand, speakers practice code-switching when they are each fluent in both languages. Code mixing is a thematically related term, but the usage of the terms code-switching and code-mixing varies. Some scholars use either term to denote the same practice, while others apply code-mixing to denote the formal linguistic properties of said language-contact phenomena, and code-switching to denote the actual, spoken usages by multilingual persons. Code-switching, which may be defined as the alternation between two or more languages in a speakers speech, occurs naturally in the scheme of bilinguality. Studies have reported that code-switching often happened subconsciously; people may not be aware that they have switched, or be able to report, following a conversation, which code they used for a particular topic (Wardaugh in Ariffin, 2012). 1

However, although bilingual speakers claim that code-switching is an unconscious behavior, research has also shown that it is not a random phenomenon. As attested by Li Wei in Ariffin (2012), Sociolinguistics who have studied code switching draw attention to extralinguistic factors such as topic, setting, relationships between participants, community norms and values, and societal, political and ideological developments influencing speakers choice of language in conversation.

Code-switching is, thus, seen as a purposeful activity, that is, there are functions and intentions assigned to this behavior (Gumperz, Myers-Scotton, Hoffman in Ariffin, 2012). Based on this assumption, this paper investigates how code-switching is used as a device to achieve the communicative intents and serve certain functions in a conversation. While the nature of code-switching is spontaneous and subconscious, studies have reported that it is actually used as a communicative device depending on the switchers communicative intents (Tay, Myers-Scotton, Adendorff in Ariffin, 2012). Speakers use switching strategies to organize, enhance and enrich their speech in order to achieve their communicative objectives. The discourse-enhancing functions of code-switching have been much discussed in the literature. For example, speakers may code-switch to express solidarity and affiliation with a particular group (Gal and Milroy in Ariffin, 2012). In addition, code-switching can also be use to fill a linguistic or conceptual gap of the speaker (Gysel in Ariffin, 2012). It is seen as a communication strategy it provides continuity in speech to compensate for the inability of expressions. Studies have also shown that speakers code-switch to reiterate or emphasize a point (Gal in Ariffin, 2012). By repeating the same point in another language, the speaker is stressing or

adding more point on the topic of discussion. In addition, code-switching is also used for different pragmatic reasons, depending on the communicative intent of the speakers such as a mitigating and aggravating message, effective production, distancing strategy (David in Ariffin, 2012) etc. The teaching and learning second or foreign language process in the classroom is one place where the code switching mostly happened, especially with the teacher talk and the students talk. However the researcher is interested to describe the teacher talk in the classroom and what makes it happened.

B. Problem Statement Based on the explanation above, the writer formulates research question as follow: How is the code switching in the teacher talk in EFL class?

C. Objective of the Research Based on the problem statement stated above, the objective of the research is stated as follow: To describe, interpret and explain code switching in the teacher talk in EFL class.

D. Significance of the Research The result of this research is intended to give description, interpretation, and explanation on the code switching, particularly in the teacher talk in EFL class. The result is hopefully will be useful for teachers in extending their knowledge about the code switching in the classroom.

E. Scope of the Research The scope of this research is restricted to the code switching in the teacher talk, particularly, in EFL class.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Previous research findings

There have been some researchers on code switching carried out by different researchers. Some of the results are cited below. Cakrawarti (2011) who conducted a research on Code Switching and Code Mixing in the Teenlit Canting Cantiq by Dyan Nuranindya found that there are six types of code switching and code mixing used by the teenlits writer, they are intra-sentential switching, inter-sentential switching, emblematic switching, intra-lexical code mixing, establishing continuity with the previous speaker, and involving a change of pronunciation. Intra-sentential switching is the most dominant among others. She also found ten reasons for this and mostly because of expressing group identity. Ariffin and Rafik-Galea (2012) who did their research on code-switching as a communication device in conversation reported that speakers employed code-switching to organize, enhance and enrich their speech. From the findings above it is interesting to find out more about code switching and the reason what makes people doing it. In related to this, the researcher is concerned more in finding out about this, particularly with code switching in the teacher talk in EFL class.

B. Some Pertinent Ideas In order to study the use of code-switching in classroom context, especially in English class of Junior High School; we should consider some aspects that related to this study, they are: (1)

language as a means of communication, (2) code-switching in a bilingual or multilingual community context, (3) the types of code-switching, (4) the possible factors causing codeswitching, (5) the functions of code-switching, (6) the use of code-switching in English class, (7) the functions of teachers code-switching, and (8) the functions of students code switching. 2.2.1 Language as a Means of Communication Many animals are capable of using sounds to communicate, but only humans who have created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication. Moreover, Ramelan (1992: 8) proposes that; language is something that only human beings possess in the world, and is a special characteristic of homo sapiens, since only human beings speak language, whereas other animals do not. Thus, language is considered as a criterion which is used to identify human beings (Ramelan 1992). Furthermore, as a social being, one cannot be separated from other people since he or she needs each other. Meanwhile, the cooperation between them is depend on communication, and again; this in turn needs a means of communication called language, as stated by Ramelan (1992) that; with language man can express his ideas and wishes to 14 other people such as when he needs their help so that close operation among members of the group can be carried out. Thus, the three elements mentioned above: (1) human beings, (2) community, and (3) language (Ramelan 1992) are very closely related and not easily divisible. In addition about the characteristics of human language, Carrol (1953) in Ramelan (1992: 10) states: Language is an arbitrary system of speech sounds or sequences of speech sounds which is used or can be used in interpersonal communication by an aggregation of human beings, and which rather exhaustively catalogs things, processes, and events in the human environment.

Moreover, Finnochiaro (1974) in Sugestiningrum (2002: 6) cites that; language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols that permit all people in a given culture, or other people who have learned the system of that culture, to communicate or to interact. Also, Wardaugh (1976) in Sugestiningrum (2002: 6) states that; language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbol used for human communication. Based on these statements, language is said to be an arbitrary system (Carrol 1953, Finnochiaro 1974, and Wardaugh 1976) because; it [language] is based on social agreement (Ramelan 1992: 11). In other words, there is no logical explanation or no reasoning (Ramelan 1992) to explain or to describe this characteristic. Supporting these ideas, besides arbitrary, Ramelan (1992: 10) also proposes more elements about the characteristics of human language: systematic, spoken, social, and complete. As a means of communication, language also has devices, which allow speakers to talk about themselves, to ask questions, to express and to organize their ideas; that make a different of communication between humans and animals. Parallel with this, Raghunathan (2004: 1) argues that; language is the development of the basic form of communication between human beings, and in a society. Thus, as the basic form of communication among people, language is also the most developed means through the civilization of human beings. Moreover, Raghunathan (2004) proposes that; we cannot communicate in any real sense without language, other than through gestures; we do communicate through some non-verbal forms like the visual arts - painting and sculpture and through dance, but the culmination of true, articulate, communication is through language. It means that language still becomes the most effective means of communication, which allows speaker(s) in spoken language and writer(s) in written language to deliver their ideas, opinions and feelings to other human beings.

Based on these statements, we can draw a conclusion that human language Ramelan 1992: 10) is an arbitrary system (Carrol 1953, Finnochiaro 1974, Ramelan 1992, and Wardaugh 1976), and although people can communicate through some non-verbal forms, but language still becomes the most efficient and acceptable means to communicate between human beings, and in every human society in the world.

2.2.2 Code-Switching in a Bilingual or Multilingual Community Context

It can be assumed that in a bilingual or even in a multilingual situation, the two or more languages are always in contact. Based on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; bilinguals, who can speak at least two languages, have the ability to use elements of both languages when conversing with another bilingual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication). It is clear enough that bilinguals have the ability to use at least two languages within their conversation. Moreover, Weinrich (1968) in Surati (2003: 8) cites that; all remarks of bilingualism apply as well as to multilingualism that is the practice of alternately using three or more languages. It means that bilingual even multilingual people cannot always stick to only one language; they prefer to engage at least two or more languages alternately within their conversations. The bilingualism or multilingualism situation also has appeared in Indonesia, as cited by Nababan (1979: 10-11): It is clear, however, that practically everybody is a bilingual in the cities and towns of Indonesia, with the people speaking one vernacular or local language (ones first language or mother tongue) and Indonesian. In many cases, people speak three Indonesian language, sometimes with one or more foreign languages in addition (with the older generation, the foreign language is often Dutch; with younger people, it will more likely be English). From the statement above, the vernaculars are used by Indonesian people for intra-group purposes, while Indonesian is used for inter-group communication (Nababan 1979: 12). 8

Furthermore, Nababan (1979) explains that; Indonesian is to some extent also used for international communication, that is, among Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, besides its functions as the only official language in Indonesia. Nababan (1979) also proposes that; English is the designated language for wider communication for the country [Indonesia]. Based on these statements, it is a common phenomenon in a bilingual even multilingual community, as for Indonesian people; that if they use more than one language in their daily conversations. Further, a common linguistic phenomenon in a bilingual or multilingual society: it is impossible for a bilingual or multilingual speaker to use one language only and is not interfered by other language(s) which he or she has mastered. This condition can emerge an interesting study of sociolinguistics which is called code switching. Based on Marasigan (1983: 1), codeswitching or code-choice refers to the use of two languages in the same sentence or discourse. Thus, code-switching also can be seen as code-choice. Parallel with this, Ng and He (2004: 29) also argue that; code-switching (CS), the alternation between two (or more) languages in conversations, has long existed as a result of language contact and occurs commonly in bilingual settings. From these statements, codeswitching can be used as the alternation of two or more languages, within conversations in a bilingual even multilingual community. Then, we also can analyze code-switching based on its terms, as McArthur (1998: 1) defines that; a CODE may be a language or a variety or style of a language; the term CODEMIXING emphasizes hybridization, and the term CODE-SWITCHING emphasizes movement from one language to another. Mixing and switching probably occur to some extent in the speech of all bilinguals Based on McArthur (1998), code-mixing and code-switching are quite different in its emphasis; although Sudar (2004: 2-3) gives another definition; code-

switching or code-mixing is just what seems to be the act of switching between codes (languages) in a discourse. If we deal with Sudar (2004), so there is no difference in defining of code-switching and code mixing. Furthermore, there are some definitions about code-switching that are given by scientists: Skiba (1997: 2) proposes that; code-switching is the alternation between two codes (languages and/or dialects), between people who share those particular codes. Moreover, Li (2005: 40) also cites that; code-switching means a change by a speaker (or writer) from one language variety to another one. Code-switching also can be seen as a changing of language varieties, as explained by Li (2005), it [code-switching] can take place in a different language, a person may start speaking one language and then change to another on in the middle of their speech, or sometimes even in the middle of a sentence. In addition about the characteristics of code-switching; Wardhaugh (2000) in Li (2005: 40) also states that; people are usually required to select a particular code whenever they choose to speak, they also decide to switch from one code to another or to mix codes even within sometimes every utterance and thereby create a new code. Based on these statements, the term code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) implicitly includes language in its meaning. Thus, code-switching (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Ng and He 2004, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) means switching between languages. Hence, the term codeswitching in this study refers to moving from one language, variety of language, dialect or speech style: generally called code, in the conversation among bilingual or even multilingual society. The switch may be a word, phrase, clause within a single sentence or utterance; or sentences in a whole conversation or communication event.

10

2.2.3 The Types of Code-Switching There are so many types of code-switching which are given by scientists; those classifications can be used in order to notice code-switchings occurring. Further, this study only focuses on Gumperz (1971), Hammink (2000), Li (2005), and McArthur (1998). The first definition of the types of code-switching is given by Gumperz (1971) in Li (2005: 40). He points out that there are two types of code switching: (1) situational code switching and (2) metaphorical code switching. The former: situational code switching (Gumperz 1971) is related to the speakers experience; the latter: metaphorical code switching (Gumperz 1971) is related to the situation. Moreover, Hammink (2000) in Harsanti (2005: 10) also divides codeswitching into four types: (1) borrowing, (2) calque, (3) intersentential, and (4) intrasentential. Supporting McArthurs (1998) theory; Hammink (2000) only substitutes the types of tag-switching and intra-word switching (McArthur 1998) with borrowing and calque. Furthermore; Hammink (2000) explains that the first type of code-switching: borrowing, occurs when the speaker used a word from another language which showed morphological/ phonological adaptation to the matrix language. This type of code-switching can be seen as an impact of the speakers lack of knowledge in choosing the appropriate code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar, 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used. Hammink (2000) also gives the example of borrowing type: Example : Va a imeilear a su vesino (She is going to e-mail her neighbor) From the model that is given above, the word e-mail is borrowed from English; which becomes imeilear. Thus, the type of borrowing (Hammink 2000) also can be used as the way to enrich a language vocabulary. 11

Whether for the second type of code-switching: calque, Hammink (2000) states that; calque is a literal translation of an expression from another language. It is an expression introduced into one language by translating it from another language, as Hammink (2000) gives the example: Example: Le voy a Ilamar para tras (Im going to call him back) Calque (Hammink 2000) just represents as the loan translation from another language. The other model of calque is represented by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: superman which is a calque for the German bermensch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bermensch). The third type of code-switching is intersentential as cited by Hammink (2000), intersentential is switching at the sentence level which may serve to emphasize a point made in the other language signal a switch in the conversation, participants, indicate to whom the statement is addressed; or to provide a direct of vote from, or reference to, from another conversation. Example: Y luego me dijo dont worry about it (And then he told me dont worry about it) As the model above, intersential (Hammink 2000) is used to emphasize a point and indicate to whom the statement is addressed. Besides these functions, it also can be used to quote (Marasigan 1983) from another conversation. Then the fourth type of code-switching is intrasentential (Hammink 2000); intrasentential switches at the clause, phrase level or at word level if no morphological adaption occurs. This last type is about the position which codeswitching occurs.

12

Example: Abelardo tieme los movie tickets (Albelardo has the movies tickets) Based on the model that is given, it seems that code-switching occurs at a clause boundary. The type of intrasentential (Hammink 2000) usually occurs in conversation within bilingual even multilingual community. Another explanation about the types of code-switching is given by Li (2005); he states that; according to the definition of code switching, it mainly includes three types: (1) switching between different languages, (2) switching between different dialects, and (3) switching from formal to informal. These three types of code-switching by Li (2005) commonly cover the major types of switching. Based on McArthur (1998: 1), there are four types of switching: (1) tagswitching, (2) intra-sentential switching, (3) inter-sentential switching, and (4) intra-word switching. Moreover, McArthur (1998) explains that the first type: tag-switching, in which tags and certain set phrases in one language are inserted into an utterance otherwise in another. McArthur (1998) cites the utterance of a Panjabi/English bilingual as the example of tag-switching:

IT'S A NICE DAY, HANA? (HAI N ISN'T IT). Based on this characteristic of tag-switching (McArthur 1998), code-switching can occur in tag-position, in order to make an utterance becomes a tag-question. The second type is about intra-sentential switching, as McArthur (1998) cites that; intra-sentential switching, in which switches occur within a clause or sentence boundary. The utterance of Yoruba/English bilingual as the example of intra-sentential switching (McArthur 1998): WON O ARREST A SINGLE PERSON (WON O they did not). 13

Parallel this idea is Hammink (2000); that intrasentential switches at the clause, phrase level or at word level if no morphological adaption occurs. This type of code-switching: intrasentential (Hammink 2000, McArthur 1998) is usually used by bilingual even multilingual speakers. Next, McArthur (1998) gives an explanation about the third type: intersentential switching; in which a change of language occurs at a clause or sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other. McArthur (1998) also gives the utterance of a Spanish/English, as the example of inter-sentential: SOMETIMES I'LL START A SENTENCE IN ENGLISH Y TERMINO EN ESPANOL (and finish it in Spanish). This type of code-switching occurs at a clause boundary. Based on Hammink (2000) intersential is also used to emphasize a point and indicate to whom the statement is addressed. As the model that is given above, the first code of sentence is in English and then switched into Spanish; because the speaker wants to emphasize that he or she is also able to speak in Spanish.

Finally, the last type of code-switching by McArthur (1998) is intra-word switching, as he describes that; in which a change occurs within a word boundary. Moreover, McArthur (1998) gives the example of intra-word switching:
SHOPPA (English SHOP with

the Panjabi plural ending) or the Swahili prefix ku, meaning to).

KUENJOY (English ENJOY with

The model above is the use of code-switching as affixes: the first is suffix and the latter is prefix (Ramelan 1992). Moreover, Ramelan (1992: 58-59) proposes that; certain bound morphemes are known as affixes (reflecting the fact that they must be attached, or affixed, to other morphemes). Further, he also explains that; affixes are referred to as prefixes when they

14

are attached to the beginning of another morpheme (like the prefix re- in words such as redo, rewrite, rethink) and as suffixes when they are attached to the end of another morpheme (like the suffix ize in words such as modernize, equalize, centralize). Certain language, but not English: as Indonesian, also have affixes known as infixes (Ramelan 1992), which are attached within another morpheme, for example [in Sundanese: one of Indonesian local languages], taking the word kayu, meaning wood, one can insert the infix in immediately after the first consonant k to form the word kinayu, meaning gathered wood. The type of intra-word switching (McArthur 1998) then deals with its function as affixes (Ramelan 1992). Parallel with McArthurs (1998) theory, the types of code-switching are also given by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (1) intersentential switching, (2) intra-sentential switching, (3) tag-switching, and (4) intra-word switching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching).

From those definitions above, it seems that Gumperz (1971) and Li (2005) only focus on macroforms of switching rather than to analyze the occurring of switching from its positions; as Hammink (2000) and McArthur (1998) do.

2.2.4 The Possible Factors Causing Code-Switching There are a number of reasons to switch from one language to another; further, this study only refers to the possible factors causing code-switching by Hymes (1969), Marasigan (1983), and Skiba (1997). According to Hymes (1969) in Surati (2003: 15-22), the possible factors causing codeswitching can be classified into several points: (1) situation, (2) participants, (3) ends, (4) art-sequence, (5) key, (6) instrumentalities, (7) norm, and (8) genre. The first factor 15

causing code-switching: situation; Hymes (1969) describes that; situation is composed of the setting and scene. Moreover, the term of setting is about the physical circumstance of the communicative event, including the time and place, and scene refers to the abstract psychological setting: what kind of speech event is taking place according to cultural and psychological definition. Furthermore, Hymes (1969) also explains that; the different time, place and situation can result a different use of language. The example of situation is also given by Hymes (1969): Speaking in a stadium where the football game is taking place and in a noisy situation, is different to the speaking in a library where there are many people reading or studying. Based on the sample that is given, it can be concluded that the code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used by the participants is relied on the situation (Hymes 1969) of conversation. The second factor causing code-switching: participants (Hymes 1969); participants deal with the people in the communicative event, including various combination of speakerlistener, addressor-addressee, or sender-receiver. In more detail, Hymes (1969) gives the example about participant: A two person conversation involves speaker and listener whose roles can change; a political speech involves and addressor and addresses (the audience); and a telephone conversation [mailbox] involves a sender and a receiver. Thus, participants (Hymes 1969) become the most important element of a conversation which will decide the kind of conversation and how the conversation will be. The third factor causing code-switching: ends (Hymes 1969); ends are related to the language function and the purpose of conversation. According to Hymes (1969), the end of speech event can be divided into outcomes (the purpose of the event from the cultural point of view) and goals (the purpose of the individual participants). For illustration, Hymes (1969)

16

gives the example of ends: In a bargaining event, the overall outcome is to be the orderly exchange something of value from one person to the other. While, the goal of the seller, of course, is to maximize the price; the buyer wants to minimize it. From the model that is given, it seems that ends are depend on the purpose of event: outcomes (Hymes 1969) which is then followed by the purpose of individual participants: goals (Hymes 1969). The forth factor causing code-switching: act-sequence (Hymes 1969) refers to message form and content. Moreover, Hymes (1969) explains that; message form deals with the price word used, how they are used and the relationship of what is said with the actual topic, while content means what is said, what topic is talked about in the communication event. As the example that is given by Hymes (1969): A lecturer, a casual conversation and a barbeque party chatter are all different form of speaking, with different kind of languages and things talked about. In a real communication, message form and content (Hymes 1969) may always change because many reasons and they also can influence the change of language used. The fifth factor causing code-switching: key (Hymes 1969) refers to the tone, manner or spirit in which particular message is conveyed: light-hearted, serious, casual, pedantic, mocking, sarcastic or others. The key may also be marked non-verbally, as Hymes (1969) gives the example: When a person is speaking while pointing his finger to the interlocutors, it can show impoliteness. Thus, the key (Hymes 1969) can also be seen as styles which affect the degree of conversation. The sixth factor causing code-switching: instrumentalities (Hymes 1969) which include: channel and form of speech. Based on Hymes (1969), channel is the way a message travels from one person to another, while form of speech includes language and their subdivisions, dialect, codes, varieties and registers chosen in communication. Hymes (1969)

17

gives the example of the channel which determines the form of speech: The language used in telephoning will be different to the language in face-to-face interaction. In this case, the way a message: channel (Hymes 1969) travels; will give an impact to the form of speech. The seventh factor causing code-switching: norms (Hymes 1969) which include: interaction and interpretation norms. Moreover, Hymes (1969) explains that; interaction norm deals with what is permitted to do in communication and what is not. In other words, interpretation norm is more or less what is meant by expression reading between the lines; it involves trying to understand what is being conveyed beyond what are the actual words used. Further, Hymes (1969) argues that; the norm of interaction and interpretation cannot be separated the culture, belief and situation of the society. Thus, these norms vary between social groups. The eight factor causing code-switching: genre (Hymes 1969) which refers to clearly demarcated types of utterance; such as poems, riddles, proverbs, lectures, prayers, etc. Hymes (1969) describes that; the language of speech will be different to the language of telling stories or having a chat. It means that the difference in genre (Hymes 1969) also will differ the use of language or code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000). Further, Marasigan (1983: 39) also mentions the social factors of language variation: (1) role relationships between speakers and addressee, (2) topics, (3) situation, (4) domain, and (5) setting. The first type of language variation: role relationships between speakers and addressee (Marasigan 1983), as explained by Goodenough (1963) in Marasigan (1983: 39); as social identity, [role relationships] may be characterized by the dimensions of status and solidarity. Supporting Goodenough (1963), Marasigan (1983) also proposes that; status may be

18

defined by relative sex, relative caste or class, relative professional ranking and relative age, while solidarity may be defined according to the relative intimacy between the speaker and the addressee. Thus, in role relationships between speakers and addressee, the two of social aspects: status and solidarity (Goodenough 1963, Marasigan 1983) also give an important influence in choosing the code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used within conversation. The second type of language variation: topics, as stated by Marasigan (1983: 40) that; the topic under discussion may be a determinant of linguistic behavior. Moreover, Ervin and Tripp (1964) in Marasigan (1983: 40) also propose that; topic may be construed it may include not only categories such as subject matter but also propositional content of utterances. Usually, there is more than one topic within a conversation which makes the participants (Hymes 1969) switch their code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000). The third type of language variation: situation (Marasigan 1983). Bock (1964) in Marasigan (1983: 40) argues about a dimension situation which combines three variables: time, place and roles. He also gives the example: one type of cultural situational might be a class, which usually takes place during class time in a school with roles of teacher and pupil. When those three variables: (1) time, (2) place and (3) roles (Bock 1964) come together in a regular way, as cited by Fishman (1965) in Marasigan (1983: 40); they may be reflected in certain language usage norms. So, situation (Marasigan 1983) needs these three variables: (1) time, (2) place and (3) roles (Bock 1964) in order to make code-switching occurs. The forth type of language variation: domain (Marasigan 1983), further Fishman (1965) in Marasigan (1983: 40) sees domain as a cluster of social situations which are typically

19

constrained by a common set of behavioral rules and which in any community is associated with particular variety. Thus, a social group or community may contribute the use of codeswitching among of members. The fifth type of language variation: setting, as cited by Marasigan (1983); setting includes both the time and the place of interaction. Based on this statement, time and place also cause switch the code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used within conversation. Skiba (1997: 2) also gives his theory for the possible factors causing codeswitching: (1) the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or herself in one language, (2) switching commonly occurs when an individual wishes to express solidarity with a particular social group, and (3) the alteration that occurs when the speaker wishes to convey his or her attitude to the listener. For the first possible factor causing code-switching: the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or herself in one language (Skiba 1997), in this case; Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 1-2) argues that; the speaker may be triggered into speaking in the other language for a while, further; he also cites that; this type of code switching [the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or herself in one language (Skiba 1997)] tends to occur when the speaker is upset, tired or distracted in some manner. Thus, in this type; code-switching becomes the way to compensate for the speakers deficiency. Parallel with Crystal (1987), Skiba (1997) also deals that; code switching is not a language interference on the basis that it supplements speech. Where code switching is used due to an inability of expression, as proposed by Skiba (1997), code switching provides a continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in language. Based on these statements, the first type of the possible factors causing code-switching: the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or herself in one language (Skiba 1997), shows that

20

code-switching is not a deficit of speakers knowledge, but a means which provides a continuity in speech (Skiba 1997). The second possible factor causing code-switching: to express solidarity with a particular social group (Skiba 1997), further; he states that; the sociolinguistic benefits have also been identified as a means of communicating solidarity, or affiliation to a particular social group, whereby code switching should be viewed from the perspective of providing a linguistic advantage rather than an obstruction to communication. Although, in the other hands, Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 2) also proposes that; this type of switching [to express solidarity with a particular social group (Skiba 1997)] may also be used to exclude others from a conversation who do not speak the second language. Moreover, Crystal (1987) gives the example of such a situation: two people in an elevator in a language other than English. Others in the elevator who do not speak the same language would be excluded from the conversation and a degree of comfort would exist amongst the speakers in the knowledge that not all those present in the elevator are listening to their conversation. Thus, parallel with these statements, in order to make a communication becomes acceptable within a social community of bilingual or multilingual; code-switching serves a device to fulfill these needs. Further, the third possible factor causing code-switching: the alteration that occurs when the speaker wishes to convey his or her attitude to the listener (Skiba 1997). It means that codeswitching allows bilingual even multilingual speakers to convey their attitude to listeners, this is like where monolingual speakers can communicate these attitudes by means of variation in the level of formality in their speech; bilingual even multilingual speakers can convey the same by code switching; as Skiba (1997) tries to describe that; code switching allows a speaker to convey attitude and other emotives using a method available to those who are bilingual and again

21

serves to advantage the speaker, much like bolding or underlining in a text document to emphasise points. Moreover, Skiba (1997) explains that by utilising the second language, then, allows speakers to increase the impact of their speech and use it in an effective manner. Thus, a speaker can also emphasize his or her meanings to listeners by using codeswitching, as a writer does by bolding or underlining in his or her text document to emphasize points; code-switching is the appropriate choice for a bilingual even multilingual speaker to convey these attitudes or emotives. From those discussions above, code-switching occurs because of the social factors (Hymes 1969, Marasigan 1983, and Skiba 1997) of bilingual even multilingual communities that influence the speaker; code-switching also provides a continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in language (Skiba 1997). 2.2.5 The Functions of Code-Switching Basically, people communicate in order to deliver their ideas and wishes to other people such as when he needs their help (Ramelan 1992). Parallel with this, based on Li (2005: 40), people may employ different kinds of code switching for different purposes. Here are some functions of code-switching that presented by some scientists: Grosjean (1982), Marasigan (1983), and Scotton (1979). The first definitions of the functions of code-switching are given by Grosjean (1982) in Harsanti (2005: 19): (1) Speaker prefers to use the most available word than to find similar expression in proper language (Grosjean 1982). Supporting this idea is Marasigan (1983) with facility of expression. It seems that code-switching is not a deficit of speakers knowledge, but a means which provides a continuity in speech (Skiba 1997).

22

(2) Speaker will keep using the new code since it will trigger him thus the continuation of sentence may stay in the new code (Grosjean 1982). This second function of code-switching happens consciously by the speaker; because he or she consciously chooses the code (Li 2005, Marasigan, 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) that used. (3) Speaker has something to emphasize by mentioning certain words into certain intonation and showing facial expression (Grosjean 1982). Parallel with this is Marasigan (1983) with interjection; it is used to emphasize an important point within conversation. (4) Speaker quotes someones saying (Grosjean 1982). Marasigan (1983) also deals this function with quotations; quotations serve a proof that what the speakers saying are facts so that the addressees have to believe him or her. (5) Speaker marks and shows his group identity (Grosjean 1982). This function deals with Skiba (1997); that switching commonly occurs when an individual wishes to express solidarity with a particular social group. (6) Speaker has a sense of humor (Grosjean 1982). Of course, this function is depend on the characteristic of each individual; there is no pattern in qualifying code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) which includes as a humor or not. (7) Speaker excludes someone, or when a third person enters the room, or if the location of the interaction changes (Grosjean 1982). This function deals with Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 2); code-switching is used when speaker wants to exclude someone within a conversation. (8) Speaker wants to show the audience that he is able to use or speak in other languages (Grosjean 1982). For this last function, again this is a conscious act of the speaker that he or she wants to show his or her ability in mastering some languages.

23

Another functions of code-switching are also proposed by Marasigan (1983: 120): (1) quotation, (2) interjection, (3) repetition, (4) addressee specification, (5) message qualification, (6) personalization and objectification and (7) facility of expression. The first function of codeswitching: quotations which according to Marasigan (1983: 73), subjects quoted themselves and others directly or indirectly to sound more credible to the addressees. By quoting, perhaps the addressees will believe what the speaker said. Moreover, Marasigan (1983) proposes that; a quotation served as a proof that what they were saying were facts and that the addressees had to believe them. Quoting also persuades the addressees that what the speaker said is a fact. Marasigan (1983: 75) also states that; the subjects switched codes to preserve the originality of the message. Quoting is also used to preserve the originality of the message, rather than only to provide a persuasion, as explained by Marasigan (1983) that; to avoid any distortion in the meaning of the message, the speakers decide to use the language in which the message was originally stated. Sometimes the speaker is hard to deliver his or her ideas, because of an ambiguity of language he or she used; quoting is the most appropriate way to avoid the ambiguity. Marasigan (1983: 76) gives the example of the situation where the Filipino speaker expressed his idea of a good student by quotation: Sabi nga e (as they say), Honesty is the best policy. Actually, the Filipino speaker could have restated the quotation in Pilipino to convey the same message; but perhaps he felt that the message, which was originally said in English, would not have the same impact on the addressees if he had been translated to Pilipino. The second function of code-switching: interjection (Marasigan 1983: 81). The function of interjection based on Marasigan (1983) is to express strong feelings or emotions. Interjection is used much like bolding or underlining in a text document to emphasise points.

24

Marasigan (1983) also notices that, for Filipinos as the example; Pilipino expressions describe Filipino emotions very well and the feelings could have been insipidly expressed in English. Parallel with this, Indonesian or native languages, also expressions describe Indonesian emotions very well rather than any foreign languages. Marasigan (1983: 82) gives the situation of interjection, where the subject: as a Filipino father, shared with the readers his problems financial problem: (1) I dont know kung paano pa ang gagawin kung pagkayod (how hard I still have to work). (2) You see, schooldays na naman, matriculation, allowences and miscellaneous ang iniintindi ko (its schooldays again and I have to attend to many things like matriculation fees, daily allowance for my children and many other miscellaneous expenses.) (3) My wife helps me also in budgeting, but parang palaging kulang (but the money we earn does not seem enough for our expenses.) (4) Laki talaga ng gastos nyagon ng schooling (school expenses have indeed increased), from my kinder up to 5th grade, oh heaven! Marasigan (1983: 82) also explains that; concepts such as fifth grade, matriculation, school supplies etc. can be better expressed and understood in English than in Pilipino. Nevertheless, the complaints were in Pilipino As Indonesian comments of football match, the terms such: offside, sliding, hand, etc. can be better understood in English than in Indonesian, while the comments are in Indonesian; because it can express strong feelings or emotions of Indonesian. The third function of code-switching: repetition Marasigan (1983: 79), as she mentions that; repetition may serve to clarify what is said, amplify or emphasize a message, or mark a joke. So, the use of repetition actually is depend on the context itself. The conversation below is the example of repetition that is given by Marasigan (1983); where the first speaker (A) felt uncomfortable in the car because of the position of the second speakers (Bs) legs: A : Ate Christy, you stretch your legs. B : Ano (what)? A : I said, You stretch your leg. B : Ano (what)? 25

C : Darling, magtagalog ka (Darling, speak Tagalog). Ate Christy does not understand English. A : Ah! Ate Christy, istretch mo ang legs mo. C : (Laughing) Sabi ko (I said), You speak in Tagalong Tagalong bay an (Is that Tagalog)? A : Oo, sabi ko naman istretch nya ang legs nya, ah (Yes, I told her to stretch her legs).

The conversation above was considered by Marasigan (1983) as a form of repetition rather than quotation although the speakers (A and C) practically quoted themselves. Moreover she explains that it is because the span of time between the original and the repeated message was very short both the original and the repeated message were contained in the text. Marasigan (1983) also explains that in quotations; the original message has been uttered by the speakers a long time ago and they are just recalling them aloud. From the model above we can see that the first speaker (A) repeated the same message when he thought that the second speaker (B) did not understand him and failed to follow his instruction. In the second repetition, he thought that the second speaker could not hear very well and so get intention in repeating his message was to heard rather than to be understood. Maybe in this case, the first speaker (A) presumed that the second speaker (B) could understand English and therefore, there no need for her to repeat what she said in the other code (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000). The forth function of code-switching: addressee specification, as cited by (Marasigan 1983: 76); the switch serves to direct the message to a specific person. It means that codeswitching is used to personalize the message to be delivered. Moreover, Marasigan (1983) argues that; this type of switching [addressee specification] recognizes not only the interacting members of the speech events but it also recognizes that their language behavior may be more

26

than merely a matter of individual preference or facility, but also a matter of role relations. Besides its function as an individual preference of facility, addressee specification (Marasigan 1983) also indicates a matter of role relations within conversation. Furthermore, Marasigan (1983: 77) gives the conversation of a Filipino student who reported to his teacher that two of his classmates were quarrelling as the example of addressee specification: C : Miss, o, fighting again the two. D : (Teacher): Sinong nag-aaway (Who are quarrelling)? C : The two, Miss. E : Away ng away (always quarrelling). C : Oo, seatmates pa naman! (yes, and they are seatmates, too!)

Marasigan (1983) also explains that; in some schools in the Philippines the language of communication between teachers and students is English. The use of English does not only indicate the difference between their roles but it also encourages the students to speak the language they learn in school. Unfortunately, this case is not found in Indonesia; maybe only few of schools in Indonesia that apply English as the language of daily communication. Most of schools in Indonesia only use Indonesian as the daily-official language between teachers and students. Further, Marasigan (1983) tries to analyze the conversation above; the boy (C) used English when he reported to his teacher that two of his classmates were quarrelling. He used the same code to answer the question of the teacher. He switched to Mix-mix (a Pilipino based sentence with only one English word substitution) when he talked to his classmate E. From the model that is given above; we can conclude that addressee specification (Marasigan 1983) is not only as an individual preference of facility, but it also indicates a matter of role relations within conversation. The fifth function of code-switching: message qualification (Marasigan 1983: 83). The aim of switching under this category served mainly, as cited by Marasigan (1983: 84), is to 27

qualify a previous message which the speaker believed would be better understood in the other code. Message qualification can be used in order to evaluate whether the addresses understand or do not with the message that is given. Marasigan (1983: 65) gives the example of message qualification; the play director (A) was distributing the scripts to the participants of a coming school play: A : So this is your role. B : Bakit naman ekstra (Why did you give me a very unimportant role). A : What I mean the role, Kung gaano kahaba (how long it will be). B : I will appear ah three A : Pero maganda (but its beautiful).

Moreover, Marasigan (1983: 84) tries to give explanation of the conversation above; the addressee B failed to understand the message of the speaker A which was said in English. Further, she explains that; the speaker [A], then, felt the necessity to switch to Pilipino. However, the speaker (as the director of the school play) seemed unwilling to take the risk of being misunderstood again, so he switched to Pilipino to explain what he meant by role. In the model which is given, Marasigan (1983) notices that; the impatience in his [the speaker As] tone when he said kung gaano kahaba (how long your role will be) could be paraphrased as This is what I mean by role. Its simple, why cant you understand me? Then code-switching: as message qualification (Marasigan 1983), moreover, can be used to check the understanding of the message that is given. Marasigan (1983: 85) also mentions that; in other cases, the switched passages [switches as message qualification] were meant to amplify or emphasize a message. For the second function of message qualification (Marasigan 1983), it not only can be used in order to evaluate but also to emphasize a message. Marasigan (1983: 85) also gives a composition of a Filipino grade six girl about her friends as the example of this second function of message qualification; as a means to amplify or emphasize a message: 28

Silay laging magkakasama (They always together) anywhere they go. Marasigan (1983) explains that; in Philippines, schoolmates, even if they are friends, normally enjoy each others company only in the school campus among the subjects friends. But in the model that is given, it can be seen that they were always together not only in, but also outside the school campus. This was what the writer wanted to point out when she switched to English; that their group was different, so she described it in another language. The sixth function of code-switching: personalization and objectivization (Marasigan 1983: 85), as she states that; the code contrast here seems to relate to such things as: the degree of speaker involvement in, or distance form, a message or an addressee; whether a statement reflects personal opinion, feeling or knowledge; whether it refers to specific instances, or whether it has the status of generally known fact. Thus, the functions of personalization and objectivization (Marasigan 1983) are divided into: objective marks that the speaker gives about the fact and subjective argument from the speaker as personalize marks. Moreover, Marasigan (1983: 86) cites about the coming basketball game between two of the Philippines most popular basketball team Crispa and Toyota, as the example of personalization and objectivization: Its a Crispa-Toyota deal. Im one of the Crispa die-hard fans. Sana manalo sila (I hope they win). Further, Marasigan (1983: 86) explains that; the subject used English to express what to him were objective facts. He switched to Pilipino to express a personal wish. Here the subject was not only stating a message. He was expressing his involvement in it. He would want his favorite team to win and would certainly be disappointed if it did not. From the model that is given, it

29

seems that English is only used when the speaker wants to deliver the fact, in the other hands, the first language; in this case is Pilipino, is used when the speaker want to argue something. The seventh function of code-switching: facility of expression (Marasigan 1983: 90). Based on Gumperz and Hernandez (1971) in Marasigan (1983: 80); not all instances of code alternation convey meaning. Moreover, Marasigan (1983: 90) proposes that facility of expression is a function where the shift can only be interpreted as difficulty in finding the right words at the time of speaking or writing or merely as a sign of the subjects lack of familiarity with the style he is using. This function of code-switching is used due to an inability of expression; code-switching provides a continuity in speech (Skiba 1997). Marasigan (1983: 91) gives the composition written by a grade six girl as the example of switching for facility of expression: My barkadas are Andrea, Maricris and Lora (My friends are) They are minsan pikon and minsan good (They are sometimes unable to take jokes and sometimes good). We always together, sometimes nagkakaroon kami ng misunderstanding at madalas kaming magaway (we sometimes misunderstand each other and we quarrel often)

In addition, Marasigan (1983: 92) also explains that; Filipinos, in general, switch code for facility of expression (in addition to the six functions previously discussed). Parallel with this, most of Indonesian people also use code-switching in order to facility their lack of knowledge. Furthermore, according to Scotton (1979) in Surati (2003: 13-14), there are also four main reasons for the use of code-switching: (1) Lack of knowledge of one language or lack of facility in that language or certain subject (Scotton 1979). This first function deals with Grosjean (1982) that; speaker prefers to use the most available word than to find similar expression in proper language and Marasigan (1983) with facility of expression. Moreover, Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 23) state that; 30

contrary to the assumption that code-switching is evidence of linguistic deficit in bilingual speakers, the sequential analysis suggests that code-switching is used as an additional resource to achieve particular conversational goals in interactions with other bilingual speakers. Again, this function happens as means to facility the speakers lack of knowledge. (2) To exclude certain person present from the portion of the conversation (Scotton 1979). This statement deals with Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 2) who also states that; code-switching may also be used to exclude others from a conversation who do not speak the second language. Further, Grosjean (1982) also proposes that; speaker excludes someone, or when a third person enters the room, or if the location of the interaction changes. Thus, sometimes code-switching is used when the speaker wants to eliminate someone from the conversation. (3) As a stylistic device to indicate a change in the tone of conversation at a certain point or to signal the introduction of a subject more or less formal than what had been under discussion (Scotton 1979). Moreover, Grosjean (1982) also argues that; speaker has something to emphasize by mentioning certain words into certain intonation and showing facial expression. Parallel with this is Marasigan (1983) with interjection; it is used to emphasize an important point within conversation. Also in this path, Ng and He (2004: 29) who try to explain that; CS [codeswitching] may serve to translate, clarify, elaborate, or emphasize a message that has been previously expressed in another language. Based on these statements, this third function of code-switching by Scotton (1979) can be seen as a means to emphasize or signal an important point within conversation. (4) As an attempt to impress another with his virtuosity in several languages or at least one prestige language (Scotton 1979). Supporting this idea, Grosjean (1982) also argues that;

31

speaker wants to show the audience that he is able to use or speak in other languages. Thus, this last function is used to show the speakers ability in mastering several languages. From those statements; Grosjean (1982), Marasigan (1983), and Scotton (1979) have the same definitions in classifying the functions of code-switching, they are: facility of expression or lack of knowledge of one language (Grosjean 1982, Marasigan 1983, Scotton 1979); interjection or speaker has something to emphasize (Grosjean 1982, Marasigan 1983, Scotton 1979); to exclude certain person present from the portion of the conversation (Grosjean 1982, Scotton 1979); quotation or speaker quotes someones saying (Grosjean 1982, Marasigan 1983); and as an attempt to impress another with his virtuosity in several languages (Grosjean 1982, Scotton 1979). Thus it can be concluded that if code-switching styles served as functioning communicative systems. 2.2.6. Different Contexts for Learning In the different contexts for learning, as cited by Harmer (2007: 12), there is a distinction between people who study English as a foreign language and those who study it as a second language or other language. Parallel with Harmer (2007), Paul (2003: 1) also proposes that; one of the most important distinctions to be aware of is that between ESL and EFL. Thus, in order to make these distinctions become easier to be studied; this study divides the different contexts for learning into two particular groups: (1) English as a Foreign Language learners, and (2) English as a Second Language learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003). Henceforth, they are called with EFL learners and ESL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003). Based on Paul (2003: 1), the term of ESL refers to the learning of English by immigrants to a country where English is the native language, as he gives the example of ESL: A Korean child who has moved to Australia with her family is an ESL learner in her English

32

class; while for EFL; Paul (2003) argues that; EFL as the learning of English by students in a country where English is not the native language. Thus, the condition of EFL is like in Indonesia; where learners study English as the foreign language rather than as the second language. Parallel with Paul (2003), Harmer (2007: 12) suggests that; EFL learners tend to be learning so that they can use English when travelling or to communicate with other people, from whatever country, who also speak English. Whether for ESL learners, Harmer (2007) states; on the other hand, [ESL learners] are usually living in the target-language community. Moreover, the group of EFL is usually called as general English (Harmer 2007), that is because EFL learners only study English in order to be able to communicate with others who also speak English, further; EFL learners often do not have a particular reason for going to English classes, but simply wish to learn to speak (and read and write) the language effectively for wherever and whenever this might be useful for them (Harmer 2007). In studying English, the situation of general English (Harmer 2007) is also parallel with Indonesian learners; although not all of them do. Moreover, Paul (2003: 1) also argues that; ESL learners generally have more chances to use English naturally outside class, such as while playing with their friends, shopping, or surviving in daily life. It is true that ESL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) have a lot of chances to practice their English effectively because they live in a target-language community (Harmer 2007). Moreover, Paul (2003) gives the example of the situation of ESL: They [ESL learners] are also likely to have much more exposure to English, such as when watching TV or just hearing conversations around them. In general, they are more likely to deeply understand the importance of English and feel it is natural and necessary to learn it. From the model that is

33

given, we can see that EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) easily study and practice their English effectively in their daily life because their environment: the target-language community (Harmer 2007) which always supports them to do it. Furthermore, Paul (2003: 1-2) also tries to give a description about EFL learners; EFL learners, on the other hand, rarely feel it is either natural or necessary to learn English. The environment of EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) is quite different with ESL learners. The general English (Harmer 2007): the group of EFL learners, who do not have a particular reason to study English, will find a difficulty to practice their English in their real life. Moreover, Paul (2003) cites that; adults may have told them [EFL learners] English is important, but unless they are in an environment where there is a lot of English around them, they are unlikely to feel a deep emotional need for the language. From these statements, the environment of EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) also gives the bigger persuasion to learners emotion about the important of studying English, rather than the impulse that is given by their parents, teachers, or peers. As EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003); the first year students of Junior High School in Indonesia also study English that is felt very different from their own: Indonesian or their mother tongue, do not use the alphabet in their own language, and may not deeply understand why they are learning English in the first place. If an English teacher wants them to adopt a positive and active approach to learning with a clear sense of direction, he or she must success in giving an effective approach to them. Moreover, in English class, an English teacher should use English for classroom interaction with EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003). There may also be times when an English teacher needs to use the students native language to help introduce activities, but if possible he or she should try to use English accompanied by

34

mime and gesture. As cited by Phillips (1993: 6), in a feedback session where the aim is for the children to express their feeling and attitudes, it would be counter-productive to expect them to use their limited knowledge of English. As proposed by Phillips (1993), it will make a teaching learning process becomes counter-productive if an English teacher still forces his or her students: EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to use only English in whole English class time. Further Phillips (1993) proposes that; what is important is that the children are given clear guidelines on when they are expected to use English and when their first language is permissible. Teaching EFL learners is quite different from teaching ESL learners, because EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) sometimes need the use of their native language besides English. From those discussions above; a lesson plan which manages times when EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) are expected to use English and when their native language is allowed, is the best solution in teaching English for EFL.

2.2.7 Speaking Activities in English Class Speaking activities in English class is quite important, especially for High School students. Based on Harmer (2007: 37), the way that teachers talk to students the manner in which they interact with them is one of the crucial teacher skills, but it does not demand technical expertise. Moreover, as Harmer (2007: 38) also suggests that; there is a continuing debate about the amount of time teachers should spend talking in class. Classes are sometimes critised because there is too much TTT (Teacher Talking Time) and not enough STT (Student Talking Time). Thus, speaking is still the most important way in teaching language; besides listening, writing, and reading, especially in learning English. Although based on Harmer (2007);

35

speaking does not demand technical expertise from an English teacher, but it can also become counter-productive (Phillips 1993) if a teacher does not know when the appropriate time for him or her to speak and when the time for his or her students. Further, there are some factors which have influences in speaking activities in English class: (1) teacher talk, (2) students talk, and (3) reasons for teaching speaking. 2.2.7.1 Teacher Talk In classroom context, as proposed by Holmes (1986: 19); teacher talk serves many functions. At very general level, moreover, he explains more about these three broad functions: (1) as the informing function, (2) as the directive or management function, and (3) as the questioning or eliciting function (Holmes 1986). The first function of teacher talk, as mentioned before by Holmes (1986): the informing function, is to deliver new information to students. This is all at once as the basic function of a teacher him or herself that is to teach or to deliver new ideas or concepts as the knowledge for his or her students. Furthermore, Holmes (1986) also argues that this function appears because teachers are generally older and knowledgeable than their pupils and more statusful by virtue of their role as educators and instructors. The relation between a teacher and students are marked by the role: a teacher as the educator and students as the learners. Then, the second function of teacher talk: as the directive or management function (Holmes 1986) is for potential directive intent. Thus, this concept makes a teacher plays multifunction, besides as the educators, a teacher also has to play the role as the director in classroom context. As the director, of course, a teacher should direct or manage his or her students and all that related to learning activities, in order to make an effective and efficiency teaching learning process. The last function of teacher talk: as the questioning or eliciting function (Holmes 1986) is to evaluate the materials which

36

are given; do pupils understand or do not. Finally after giving explanations about the materials which are given or after managing all that related to teaching learning process, now a teacher plays the role as the evaluator. This function is to check whether students understand the materials which are given or do not. Further, a problem occurs about the time of teacher talk, as cited by Delamont (1976), Flanders (1970), Khoo (1986), and Stubs (1983) in Holmes (1986: 19-20), all over the world in all types of classrooms, including traditional and open-plan, teachers dominate the available talking time. In this case, when an English teacher dominates the talking time, it means more less the time which available for students to practice their English in the classroom. As previous discussions about learning English in this study; students actually who need more time to practice their English, not their teachers. In this case, for Indonesian students who are categorized as EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003), they have no time to practice their English in the outside but in the classroom. Parallel with this, Harmer (2007: 38) states that; overuse of TTT [Teacher Talking Time] is inappropriate because the more a teacher talks, the less chance there is for the students to practice their own speaking and it is the students who need the practice, not the teacher. Moreover, he also explains that; if a teacher talks and talks, the students will have less time for other things, too, such as reading and writing (Harmer 2007). We can imagine about the situation where a teacher only talks and talks without thinks about chances for his or her students to speak, so there is no feedback, and the result from this one-way communication is that students cannot develop their skills in mastering English. For these reasons, again Harmer (2007) proposes that; a good teacher maximizes STT [Students Talking Time] and minimise TTT. Overuse of TTT or Teacher Talking Time (Harmer 2007) only will give no benefit for both teachers and students; because a teacher only will find

37

him or herself in one-way communication so that students also have no time to practice their English in the classroom effectively and efficiently. Perhaps, therefore, we should not talk simply about the difference between STT and TTT, but also consider TTQ (Teacher Talking Quality) (Harmer 2007), as explained by Harmer (2007: 38); in other words, teachers who just go on and on, using language which is not especially useful or appropriate, are not offering students the right kind of talking, whereas teachers who engage students with their stories and interaction, using appropriate comprehensible input will be helping them to understand and acquire the language. TTQ or Teacher Talking Quality (Harmer 2007) offers a solution in giving students chances to practice their English, because a teacher engages them with such as some kind of stories in English, which can stimulate them to speak up using their English. Thus, a good English teacher should not only maximize his or her TTT or Teacher Talking Time (Harmer 2007) within a teaching learning process, but also should consider about STT or Students Talking Time (Harmer 2007). The solution from this case, in order to give students chances to speak in English, a teacher also can apply TTQ or Teacher Talking Quality (Harmer 2007), which can engage students to take a role of speech within a teaching learning process.

2.2.8 The Use of Code-Switching in English Class When EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) enter English class, they should enter a world of English. Of course, as an English teacher definitely wants them to only speak English. But then, students may easily lapse into speaking their native language if the activities are not clear or too difficult; so this is a job for an English teacher to make sure that the activities he or

38

she introduces are clear enough and within the students capabilities. Moreover, in teaching English in Indonesia, an English teacher should consider two elements of the use of codeswitching in English class: (1) whether code-switching as a language interference in classroom context or not, and (2) using students L1, since most of them are EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003).

2.2.8.1 Code-Switching as a Language Interference in Classroom Context The previous discussions conclude that an English teacher is suggested to use the students L1 within a teaching learning process, as the notice, it is used as the last method when all the methods are failed. The questions then arise: whether code-switching is as a language interference in classroom context or not, and is it appropriate or not for an English teacher if he or she allows EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to use their L1 or native language frequently within leaning process. The second question, where students frequently in using their L1, of course only will make the amount of English that they use in class may become less and less over time, and as the consequence; a teaching learning process will be far from the aim of learning English itself. For the first question, Skiba (1997: 15) states that; code-switching can be both beneficial and a possible language interference, depending on the situation and the context in which it occurs. Code switching can be seen as a language interference in the classroom (Skiba 1997) when students may see code-switching as an acceptable form of communication in society, and would be comfortable switching languages in every day normal conversation. It seems that code-switching can become a language interference in the classroom when students prefer to switch their English to other languages because they think that this is a normal situation as in every day conversation. When the situation which is mentioned above

39

occurs within a teaching learning process, further, Skiba (1997: 15) argues that; this would put those who are no bilingual at a disadvantage, because they are not be able to communicative effectively, or at least this situation will disturb other EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) who want to practice their English within English class. In other cases, Skiba (1997: 2) also proposes that; code-switching is not a language interference on the basis that it supplements speech. Dealing with Skiba (1997) that codeswitching is as a language interference in classroom or not a language interference, is depend on the situation and the context in which it occurs. Furthermore, Skiba (1997: 2) explains that; where it is used due to an inability of expression, code-switching provides a continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in language. When code-switching is used to maintain the students communication to run smoothly; it supplements speech (Skiba 1997), then code-switching is no more a language interference in classroom context. Parallel with Skiba (1997), there are some scientists who argue that code-switching is not as a language interference in classroom, as far as it supplements speech: Milroy and Muysken (1995) in Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 24) emphasize that code-switching is not a sign of communicative deficit; codeswitching does not usually indicate lack of competence on the part of the speaker in any of the languages concerned, but results from complex bilingual skills. Moreover, Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 24) argue that; code-switching is a helpful strategy, not a sign of linguistic deficit. Thus, it is clear enough that codeswitching may be viewed as an extension to language for bilingual speakers rather than an interference and from other perspectives it may be viewed as interference, are depend on the situation and context in which it occurs (Skiba 1997: 6). In general, although code-switching is not a language interference (Milroy and Muysken 1995, Shin and Chanseawrassamee 2007, and Skiba 1997), it is best for an English teacher to

40

establish the rule that only English is allowed, and then relax the rule for special situations such as asking some questions, or by dividing a class into teams and giving minus points when one of the teams speaks in their native language.

2.2.8.2 Using Students L1 In teaching English as a foreign language, it is suggested for an English teacher to do not too force EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to only use a full-time English which is like native speakers do, but rather to be more flexible in allowing them to use their mother tongue. Parallel with this idea, Harmer (2007: 38) argues that; all learners of English, whatever their situation, come to the classroom with at least one other language, their mother tongue (often called their L1). In point of fact, the students mother tongue or L1 (Harmer 2007) is the students first language that they acquired in long time before they learn English. Thus an English teacher can use the students L1 (Harmer 2007) to facility the communication within a teaching learning process, as Phillip (1993: 6) suggested that; while it is essential to use as much English as possible in class, there are times when the use of English is counterproductive. About the times when the use of English in a teaching learning process is counterproductive (Phillips 1993), furthermore, Phillips (1993) explains that; it is often more economical and less frustrating for all concerned if you give instructions for a complicated activity in the childrens mother tongue, or check the instructions you have given by asking the children to repeat them in their own language. Based on Phillips (1993), a teacher also can use the students L1 (Harmer 2007) either to give instructions for a complicated activity or to check the instruction he or she has given.

41

The use of the students L1 (Harmer 2007) within a teaching learning process is suggested, as long as it is used when the situation needs a complicated explanation, as Gardner (2000: 8) says; you [an English teacher] will need to use your own language when the situation in your classroom requires more complicated language Again, the use of the students L1 (Harmer 2007) is allowed as long as the situation becomes complicated. Gardner (2000: 8) also gives the example of using the students L1 (Harmer 2007): an activity may be too complicated to explain clearly in English, or you may have a problem in your classroom which cannot be handled using the language presented [English] This is the time where a teacher needs a language that can help him or her to handle the situation; the students L1 (Harmer 2007) serves this function. Another sample is also given by Gardner (2000): you may sometimes need to check that your learners have understood your instructions in English. Checking the students understanding by using the students L1 (Harmer 2007) is the solution, since a teacher is also as the evaluator (Holmes 1986) within a teaching learning process. However, the use of the students L1 (Harmer 2007) is only as the last way if other method which is given by a teacher has failed, as cited by Gardner (2000: 9), but we strongly advice using translation only when every other method has failed. Actually there are a lot of methods that can be applied to make students think in English, as Gardner (2000) explains; it is important to make the learners think, so you should try using pictures, actions, descriptions, and so on, and only use translation if these dont work. An English teacher can use pictures; as one of the method for example, in order to make students think what the appropriate meaning of English words that are given. It can be draw a conclusion that deals with Paul (2007: 38-39); an English language classroom should have English in it, and as far as possible, there should be an English

42

environment in the room, where English is heard and used as much of the time as possible, although sometimes a teacher is permitted to use the students L1 (Harmer 2007) to handle the complicated situation during leaning process of EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) or to evaluate the students understanding about materials which are given. Thus, for these reasons, as suggested by Paul (2007: 39), it is advisable for teachers to use English as often as possible, and not to spend a long time talking in the students L1. It means that a teacher has to manage when the time to use the students L1 (Harmer 2007) or not at all, because actually there are a lot of methods besides it that can be applied to make students think, such as: using pictures, actions, descriptions, and so on (Gardner 2000). The key to use the students L1 (Harmer 2007) is by making a lesson plan, as cited by Gardner (2000) the aim is to plan when you [an English teacher] will use English and when you will use your own language. Since teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia is assigned for students who almost all of them are EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) and are from different cultures, it is needed the lesson plan which manages about the time in using the students L1 (Harmer 2007).

2.2.9 The Functions of Teachers Code-Switching The teachers use of code-switching within classroom context is not always performed consciously; which means that teachers are not always aware of the functions and the outcomes of the code-switching process. Therefore, in some cases it may be regarded as an automatic and unconscious behavior. Nevertheless, either conscious or not, it necessarily serves some basic functions which may be beneficial in a teaching learning process. The functions of the teachers codeswitching in classroom context as mentioned by Sert (2005: 5-8) are: (1) topic switch, (2) affective functions, and (3) repetitive functions. In the first function of the teachers code-

43

switching: topic switch, moreover (Sert 2005) states that; the teacher alters his or her language according to the topic being taught. This is a common situation in grammar instruction, that an English teacher usually shifts their language to the students L1 (Harmer 2007) in dealing with particular grammar points which are taught at that moment. At this point, as suggested by (Sert 2005) that; a bridge from known [in this case is the students L1] to unknown [in this case is English] is constructed in order to transfer the new content and meaning is made clear in this way. So this first function of the teachers code-switching can be used as a bridge (Sert 2005) to transfer English and meaning from an English teacher to his or her students clearly, although in these cases, the students attention is directed to the new knowledge by making use of code-switching and accordingly making use of native tongue. In addition to the function of code-switching named as topic switch, the phenomenon also carries affective functions, as described by Sert (2005: 5-8) that; affective functions are important in the expression of emotions, and building a relationship between the teacher and the student. In this respect, codeswitching is used by teachers in order to build solidarity and intimate relations with their students. In this sense, an English teacher may use code-switching for creating a supportive language environment in the classroom. As mentioned before, this is also not always a conscious process on the part of teachers. The last function of the teachers code-switching is repetitive function (Sert 2005). In this case, an English teacher uses code-switching to clarify the meaning of a word, and stresses importance on the foreign language content for better comprehension (Sert 2005: 5-8). Following the instruction in target language: English, teachers switch to the students L1 (Harmer 2007) in order to clarify meaning, and in this way stress the importance on the foreign language content for efficient comprehension. However, the tendency to repeat the instruction in

44

the students L1 (Harmer 2007) may lead to some undesired characters to the students behavior, as when a student who is sure that the instruction which is given in English will be followed by the students L1 (Harmer 2007) translation, he or she may lose interest in listening to the former instruction which will have negative academic consequences, as he or she is exposed to foreign language discourse limitedly. However, for the notice, as cited by Gardner (2000: 9) that an English teacher is allowed to use the students L1 when other method which is given to students has failed. Thus, again, the most important for an English teacher who teaches EFL learners (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) is the lesson plan which manages about the time in using the students L1 (Harmer 2007).

C. Conceptual Framework

45

Teaching and Learning Process

Classroom Talk

Teacher Talk

Code Switching

Calque

Intersentential

Fig.1. Conceptual Framework

46

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design The design of this research is qualitative. Qualitative research is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of comprehensive narrative and visual data in order to gain insights into a particular phenomenon of interest (Gay, et al., 2006). The aim of the qualitative research is encouraging a deep understanding of a specific phenomenon, such as environment, a process or a belief. By using the design the researcher collected, analyzed and interpreted the data to see the teacher talk in the classroom, particularly in giving instruction. The researcher used a grounded theory in analyzing the data; the teacher talk. Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss in Dawson, 2002) is an inductive method, and follows the procedures from comparing incidents applicable from each category, integrating categories and their properties, improving and writing the theory. B. Operational Definitions The followings are the key-terms used in this research: 1. Teacher talk is central in the language class not only for classroom organization and for the process of acquisition (Nunan, 1991) but also as a means for controlling student behavior (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). 2. Code switching is the concurrent use of more than one language, or language variety, in conversation. Multilingualspeople who speak more than one languagesometimes use elements of multiple languages in conversing with each other. Thus, code-switching is 47

the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the syntax and phonology of each variety. 3. EFL as the learning of English by students in a country where English is not the native language. Thus, the condition of EFL is like in Indonesia; where learners study English as the foreign language rather than as the second language. 4. Calque is an expression introduced into one language by translating it from another language. 5. Intersentential takes place between sentences (switch at the sentence) eg: start sentence using Indonesian and end it using English.

C. Participant The participant in this research is a teacher at training from UNM who is doing her teaching practice in one of the classes in SMA Negeri 11 Makassar.

D. Research Instrument In conducting the research, the researcher gathered the data through interview and observation. Interview is a purposeful interaction in which one person is trying to obtain important data or information from another (Gay, et al., 2006). The interview is used to get the additional information from the participant related to language used in the classroom. And observation is used to get the data in the classroom directly. Gay, Mills, and Airasian stated that the emphasis during the observation was on understanding the natural environment as lived by participant, without altering or manipulating it.

48

E. Technique of Collecting Data In interview, the researcher took the data by interviewing the participant to get the information needed. To get the desired data, semi-structured interview was used. This type of interview is used when the researcher wants to know specific information which can be compared and contrasted with information gained from the observation.

F. Technique of Data Analysis The gathered data were analyzed through the following procedures: 1. Open Coding The data gathered from the interview and the recording are conceptualized and categorized line by line. In this step the researcher labeled to any description in the data which relate to the focused points. 2. Axial Coding By axial coding, the researcher related one conceptual label to another. This kind of detail is called as the subcategory. 3. Selective Coding In this part, the researcher processed the indentifying phenomenon related to the research questions. By doing this, the incomplete categories or subcategories recovered. 4. Drawing Theoretical Description After finishing exploring the relationship among categories and/or subcategories, the researcher developed a theoretical description, which in turn answered the research questions.

49

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Findings This part deals with the presentation of findings and discussions. In relation to this part, the researcher found two main types of code switching used by the teacher in the classroom; calque and intersentential. 1. Calque The first part the researcher talked about is calque, since the teacher used this type of code switching (CS) in her teaching and learning process (TT). Extract 1 (the use of calque) 23 T: Ok, generally in a spoof text, there are three tenses used. 24 The first is simple present, simple past tense and past continuous tense. 25 Ok, you can take a note, ya 26 Secara umum ada tiga ini, ya 27 Generally there are three tenses but mostly used is simple past tense like narrative, ya 28 Lebih banyak menggunakan simple past tense tapi ada juga yang menggunakan simple present and past continuous tense. 29 So I will explain all of these tenses for you. 30 Ok, we move to the next slide err 31 The first is simple present tense. 32 Ok, I wanna ask you what is simple present tense? 33 Anyone can tell what is a simple present tense according to your lesson in the previous? 34 Ok, ada yang bisa jelaskan what is simple present tense? Ok, raise your hand 35 Ok, Nur risky Pratiwi 36 S: Tenses yang menjelaskan keadaan sekarang 37 T: Tenses yang menjelaskan keadaan sekarang 38 Ada yang lain? 39 The purpose of simple present tense? 40 Any else? 41 Ok, Tenroaji 42 S: Simple present adalah suatu tenses untuk menjelaskan suatu peristiwa yang telah terjadi sekarang 43 T: Ok, the same with Nur Resky Pratiwi, ya? 50

In the extract (1) above, the teacher was explaining a lesson in the class. It is about one rule of grammar. When explaining, the teacher used calque in switching the language for example when she said Secara umum ada tiga ini, ya in turn 26 and in turn 27 switch it into English when she said Generally there are three tenses. Another example is in turn 33 when she said Anyone can tell what is a simple present tense and in turn 34 switch the language when she said Ok, ada yang bisa jelaskan ?. In the interview, the teacher gave her reason why she switched her language from Indonesian to English and from English to Indonesian. I switched the language from English to Indonesian because I wanted the students understand my explanation. For example when I said, Anyone can tell what is a simple present tense , if the students didnt respond my questions directly than I need to switch the language into Indonesian. And when I switched the language from Indonesian to English I assumed that the students can follow my explanation better if I switch the language into English again. (Source: Ayu) 2. Intersentential In this section, the researcher pointed out the use of intersentential type in the teachers explanation. It can be seen in the following extract: Extract 2 (intersentential) 64 T: Ok. You can read the example: The world is round. Artinya? 65 S: Bumi itu bulat 66 T: Bumi itu bulat 67 Ada yang bisa kasi contoh lagi satu? 68 To see if you understand what I mean 69 Ok, Eldad? 70 S: The sun is round 71 T: What? Any else? 72 S: The sun is hot 73 The sun rises in the east 74 T: Ok, matahari terbit disebelah timur, ya? 75 Itu adalah salah satu contoh tentang fakta yang betul-betul terjadi in the past, now 51

and in the future.

In explaining the lesson in this part (extract 2), the teacher was using intersentential type. For example when she said The world is round. Artinya? in turn 64. Another example is in turn 67 until 69 when she said Ada yang bisa kasi contoh lagi satu? To see if you understand what I mean Ok, Eldad? The other explanation from the teacher can be seen in the following: I switched the language this time in order to make the students have an opportunity to understand the target language and to make the students respond the explanation in the target language. (Source: Ayu)

B. Discussion As its focus, the discussion of the research findings mainly deals with two main types of code switching in teacher talk, especially in giving explanation in the classroom. They are calque and intersentential. 1. Calque From the findings above, the researcher found that the teacher used calque type in code switching. From the interview, the researcher found that the teacher used this in order to make her explanation clear for the students to understand. As we know that one of the function of code-switching: repetition Marasigan (1983: 79), as she mentions that; repetition may serve to clarify what is said, amplify or emphasize a message, or mark a joke. So, the use of repetition actually is depend on the context itself. Marasigan (1983) also explains that in quotations; the original message has been uttered by the speakers a long time ago and they are just recalling them aloud. If the first speaker (A) repeated 52

the same message when he thought that the second speaker (B) did not understand him and failed to follow his instruction. In the second repetition, he thought that the second speaker could not hear very well and so get intention in repeating his message was to heard rather than to be understood. (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and

Wardhaugh 2000).

2. Intersentential In the second findings the researcher found that the teacher used intersntential type in giving her explanation in the classroom. She explained that she used this type in order to make the students accustomed to listen to the target language and respond it. This is related to the the forth function of code-switching: addressee specification, as cited by (Marasigan 1983: 76); the switch serves to direct the message to a specific person. It means that code-switching is used to personalize the message to be delivered. Moreover, Marasigan (1983) argues that; this type of switching [addressee specification] recognizes not only the interacting members of the speech events but it also recognizes that their language behavior may be more than merely a matter of individual preference or facility, but also a matter of role relations. Besides its function as an individual preference of facility, addressee specification (Marasigan 1983) also indicates a matter of role relations within conversation. Marasigan (1983) also explains that; in some schools in the Philippines the language of communication between teachers and students is English. The use of English does not only indicate the difference between their roles but it also encourages the students to speak the language they learn in school.

53

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion Based on the findings and discussions above, the researcher would like to draw the following conclusions: 1. The teacher used two types of code switching in the classroom, namely: calque and intersentential. 2. Calque was used if the teacher wanted to make the explanation clearer and understandable. 3. Insentential was used when the teacher required the students understand more about the target language and give them more chance to respond the target language. B. Suggestion Referring to the research findings in describing the code switching used by the teacher in giving explanation in the classroom, the researcher would like to state some suggestions: 1. To teachers, they should know more about the types of code switching they used in the classroom, especially the reason why they are using it in order to make them presented the lesson well and bring in a good understanding for the students. 2. To other researchers, who are concerned in exploring more about the code switching in the teacher talk, may see the research from the students talk.

54

Bibliography Ariffin, Kamissah and Shameem Rafik-Galea. 2012. Code-switching as a Communication Device in Conversation. A Thesis. University of Putra Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia.

Cakrawati, Dias Astuti. 2011. Analysis of Code Switching and Code Mixing in the Teenlit Canting Cantiq by Dyan Nuranindya. A Thesis. Semarang University.

Gay, L.R., Geoffrey E. Mills, and Peter Airasian. 2006. Educational Research, Competencies for Analysis and Applications. 8th Edition. Ohio: Merril Prentice Hall. Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. On Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Continuum Harmer, Jeremy. 1998. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Third edition. Cambridge: Longman.

Jack C. Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers. 1999. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching A description and analysis Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press. Nunan, David. 1989. From the Traditional to the Contemporary in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Scriffin. Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Malden, Massachusetts 02148. USA. Xiou-Yen, Ma. 2006. Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. A thesis. China: Chongqing Normal University & Yangtze Normal University. Yletyinen, Hanna. 2004. The Function of Code-Switching in EFL Classroom Discourse. A Thesis. University of Jyvaskyla.

55