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

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

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

HALU OLEO UNIVERSITY

KENDARI
 2019
A. Language Choice
Language is an important factor of human communication because it is a good sign of
interaction as the intended message will be conveyed and fully understood. People in
several parts of the world, are inhabited by different linguistic families and groups.
This characteristics of language within a given area or locality also means that
people's social and economic structures are also varied. Dorian (1981)(cited in
Adams.Matue,Ongarora and Adams ( 2012;p.99) state that the diversity of languages
leads to unavoidable concept of bilingualism among the local speakers. It is then
expected that instances of partial and complete language shift shall occur and even
diaglossia may set in at some point in time. There is a well-documented tendency for
some speech communities to change over time from ones first language to another
(Gal, 1979).
Language choice is when the speaker chooses what language to use in
particular situation in bilingual or multilingual communities. "Who speaks what
language to whom and when" Fishman (1965 cited in Al surmi.2000). Language
choice divided into two types;
• Marked-the language used would not be normally expected in a certain context
• Unmarked-language used is the one that would be expected in that context (Al
surmi.2000;p.4)

Although most of the world's population can speak only one language, a
sizeable minority is able to communicate in two or more. Of the world's 750 million
speakers of English, for example, only 300 million use it as their first or native
tongue. The remaining 450 million speak it as a second or third language. Whenever
speakers of two or more languages come together, a decision has to be made about
which of these languages is to be used. It may be thought that the factors affecting
choice of language are few and simple, but such is not the case. Often no satisfactory
explanation can be given as to why speakers make the choices they do.

Sociolinguists have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of bilingualism

and the complex language switching patterns that often accompany it. Many bilingual
speakers are able to switch from language to language with ease, sometimes in mid-
sentence. Attempts to define such patterns have not, however, met with much success.
Research reports on the subject are cluttered with such obscure terms as 'diglossia',
'domain', 'code-switching' and 'ethnolinguistic vitality', but reduced to the level of a
layman's understanding, the less than original conclusion would seem to be that
choice of language is dictated primarily by the milieu in which the speaker finds
himself.

It is only fair to say that research into this subject has been hampered by the
inherent unreliability of the information-gathering methods employed, the two most
common being analysis of tape-recorded speech events, and questionnaires in which
subjects are asked about their linguistic behaviour patterns.

The problem with the first of these methods is that the presence of a
researcher, or even the suspicion that the conversation is being recorded, is usually
sufficient to affect spontaneity. Covert recording of speech events is of course
possible, but severely limits the range of available speech event environments.

Questionnaires, likewise, are inherently unreliable. Subjects may not be fully

conscious of their own language usage patterns, or may wish to portray them in a
socially or culturally favourable light. In every language survey of India, for example,
two or three thousand people (0.0004% of the population) invariably claim that
Sanskrit is their first language.

Most research has focused on bilingual subjects, but true bilingualism —

native-speaker fluency in both languages — is not a prerequisite for the exercise of
language choice. Anyone who can speak two or more languages well enough to
communicate his or her thoughts and emotions is free (if circumstances allow) to
exercise choice.

Indeed it may be possible to gain a few more insights into the phenomenon of
language choice by deliberately not focusing on bilingual subjects, and by widening
the scope of investigation to include all polyglots — the term 'polyglot' here being
used in its widest sense, meaning someone who can speak several languages, though
not necessarily with the same degree of fluency.
 It is with this in mind that the following comments are offered, not as
definitive conclusions based on exhaustive and systematic research, but as a few
tentative conjectures drawn from personal experiences and observations.

It may help to clarify the problem if we begin by suggesting that language

choice is subject to two categories of factors: preferences and constraints.

A simple model of language choice might recognize the presence of only one
factor in each category. It might be thought, for example, that someone with
reasonable fluency in several languages would nevertheless choose to speak his
mother tongue wherever possible, that being the language with which he is most
familiar and comfortable. This natural tendency would be constrained by only one
factor: linguistic congruity. A native speaker of Hungarian, for instance, might prefer
to use that language wherever possible, but if he should himself in an environment
where there are no other Hungarian speakers — in a foreign country, for example —
he would be obliged to use his second or third language.

A simple model such as the above does, in fact, serve to explain a large
number of language-choice events, but it is woefully inadequate in defining many
others. Polyglots do not always prefer to use their native language, and the constraint
of congruity does not apply to situations where the participants in a conversation share
a knowledge of several languages.

A number of factual anecdotes may help to illustrate the complexity of the

problem.

1. A group of people attending a party are holding a conversation in Polish. The

Scottish hostess approaches the group to ask how everyone is enjoying the party,
and the conversation switches to English. Presently the hostess leaves to talk with
other guests, and the group continues to talk in English for several minutes. After
a short pause in the conversation one of the members of the group reverts to
Polish, and the rest of the group follows suit.
2. A foreigner visiting a Japanese department store approaches one of the shop
assistants and asks for something in Japanese. The customer's Japanese is
grammatically correct and well pronounced, and the assistant has no difficulty in
 understanding what the person has said. Nevertheless she chooses to reply in
English. For several minutes the conversation continues in two languages, the
customer speaking in Japanese, and the assistant persisting in a use of English.
3. On a flight from Honolulu to Tokyo, two young Oriental ladies are discussing, in
elementary accented Japanese, the friends they will meet and the shopping they
will do when they get to Japan. Their conversation is interrupted when a cabin
attendant comes along and asks them, in English, whether they would care for
some light refreshment. Both of them answer in fluent unaccented American
English, and after the cabin attendant has gone to attend to their order, they switch
back to Japanese.

A simple single-element preference/constraint model cannot fully explain the

language choices illustrated in these three examples.

It does not always follow that a bilingual or polyglot will prefer to speak his
native language, or will feel most comfortable using it. Some polyglots prefer, for a
number of reasons, to use their second or third language. The children of immigrants,
for example, often feel antipathy towards the language of their parents' homeland, and
prefer to use that of their host country, even though they may not yet be completely
fluent in that language. As they grow older, the language of the host country usually
becomes dominant, leading in some instances to a partial or even complete loss of the
heritage tongue. Small children are particularly sensitive to peer rejection, and those
of ethnic minorities are prone to over-emphasize their conformity with group
standards of dress, behaviour, and language. In many cases, however, the period of
late adolescence brings a new awareness of cultural and ethnic identity, and the
mother tongue may acquire a strong symbolic value.

The sons of, for example, Sikh immigrants to the United Kingdom or Canada
may, during their years in elementary or middle school, strive to suppress their ethnic
and religious identity in the interests of group solidarity, but a growing awareness of
discrimination may eventually lead them to turn away from a society which they feel
is not prepared to accept them, and seek to redefine their identity by a return to the
dress, religion, and language of their parents or grandparents. In the case of Sikh
males this would entail adopting the distinctive Sikh unshorn hair style, the wearing
of, among other things, a turban and steel bracelet, and the preferential use of the
Punjabi language.

The children of Caribbean immigrants may exhibit the same pattern of

rejection and subsequent espousal of a specific variety of English, as opposed to a
discrete language. They may consciously suppress the British, Canadian, or American
speech patterns they have acquired over the years — from birth in the case of those
born in the host country — and attempt instead to mimic those of the Caribbean island
from which their family came.

The same reaction can also be seen among the children of groups which do not
experience the same degree of discrimination as Asian, African, or Caribbean
minorities living in Western countries. The children of East European immigrants —
usually indistinguishable from the community at large — may still feel the attraction
of their heritage culture as they grow older, not because they feel rejected by the
society in which they have been raised, but because of the narcissistic appeal of
identifying with a disparate group.

Assuming that the two ladies in the third of our examples were second- or
third-generation Japanese living in Hawaii (a not unreasonable assumption in the
circumstances), it may have been this kind of cultural and ethnic awareness that led
them to conduct their conversation in a language which was clearly not their strongest.

Some polyglots may feel that one or other of the languages they speak (not
necessarily the dominant one) is better suited to the expression of certain ideas or
emotions, and they may prefer to choose that language whenever the situation
warrants. Certain languages may be perceived as 'soft', better able to express emotions
and feelings, whilst other 'hard' languages may be thought more capable of expressing
concepts and ideas.

Language choice may also be affected by utilitarian considerations. A speaker

may feel that use of a particular language will place him in an advantageous position
either within a group or within a wider social context. If his antagonists in a
discussion or argument are less fluent than he is, this will clearly serve to give him a
valuable edge. If the use of a specific language is perceived as socially advantageous
— the use of English in India is an obvious example — this would be another factor
contributing to its preferential use.

In some cases a speaker might perceive an advantage in the use of a language

with which he is less than familiar — to feign ignorance, for instance, or to cut short
an unwelcome dialogue.

The perceived advantage does not have to be vis-à-vis other individuals. It

may be for purely personal considerations that a person chooses to speak a particular
language. A student of a foreign language may prefer to use that language whenever
possible, with the sole intention of improving his ability. This may have been the
reason behind the persistent unilateral use of English by the shop assistant in the
second example.

We have already mentioned the most common constraint upon the use of a
specific language, that of congruity. Communication is only possible if both speakers
share the same language, and there is little to be gained from addressing someone in a
language which they do not understand. The only possible exception might be the
early stages of direct-method language teaching.

A related constraint is that of linguistic etiquette. There is an almost universal

taboo upon the use of a language which might exclude one or more members of a
group from a discussion, even if the subject of that discussion has no direct relevance
to that person or persons. A group of several French speakers may, for example, be
discussing plans for a farewell party for one of their workmates who is about to retire.
Another person, one who does not work at the same company, who does not know the
gentleman in question, and who will not be invited to the party, joins the group. This
newcomer, moreover, does not speak French. It is now incumbent upon the group to
continue their discussion in a language which that person can understand — English
or German, perhaps.

Having to change the language of the discussion to one which may be a second
or third language for a majority of the members can, of course, have a stultifying
effect upon the course of the discussion, making it more difficult to express thoughts
and ideas. In this case, however, the exclusion constraint takes precedence over the
language preference of the group majority. In extreme cases the requirement for a
common language might force all of the speakers to adopt second or third languages
— if the newcomer in the example given above were a native speaker of Arabic, for
example.

The search for a common language may sometimes prove unsuccessful, and a
group will have to choose the language which allows the participation of the greatest
number of people. Before switching to that language, however, it is considered polite
to apologize to the person or persons who will be excluded, and to obtain their
consent.

The first of the three examples given earlier would appear to be a good
illustration of this particular constraint. The members of the group at the party were
all of Polish descent, and Polish was the language they chose to speak among
themselves. When they became aware of the presence of their hostess, they felt
obliged to continue their conversation in English, opening the way for her possible
participation. The interesting variation shown in this example is the way the
conversation continued in English for some time after the hostess had moved on to
chat with other guests. Most of the members of the group had lived in the United
Kingdom for many years, and were fluent in English. There was no linguistic pressure
to switch back to Polish at the earliest possible opportunity, and perhaps some of the
members may have felt that such a hasty return would have been rather indecorous.

One other constraint deserves to be mentioned. Various psychological factors

sometimes preclude an easy and spontaneous switch to another language. It may be
that two or more speakers have become accustomed to conversing among themselves
in a particular language, and feel extremely uncomfortable having to change to
another. Yet other speakers may find the act of language-switching difficult in itself.
Whereas some bilinguals or polyglots can shift with consummate ease between
languages, even in mid-sentence, there are those whose language choice is
reactionary, a reflexive response to the language in which they are addressed, or the
language environment in which they find themselves.

One interesting example of the latter constraint was furnished by an Italian

consular official who once told the author that he could speak twelve languages, and a
thirteenth which he refused to use. That thirteenth was Serbo-Croatian, a language he
had been forced to use on summer visits to elderly maiden aunts in Yugoslavia, and
which for him was forever associated with some of the most dreary and unpleasant
memories of his childhood.

At the end of the Second World War, the diplomat was employed by the
Italian national railway, and given the task of coordinating the repatriation of
thousands of Allied soldiers. One day a Polish soldier visited his office, and the
conversation was conducted in German, the language they had used on many previous
occasions. After several minutes of discussion, the Polish soldier remarked that he had
heard that the Italian could speak Polish, and asked him if this were true. The official
confirmed that he could indeed speak Polish, and after a moment's hesitation, the
conversation continued in German. Several minutes later the Polish soldier once again
asked if the Italian could really speak Polish, and the answer was the same. Towards
the end of the conversation the soldier repeated his question for a third time, clearly
dissatisfied with he answers he was getting. When the Italian answered 'yes' for the
third time, the Polish soldier asked him rather bluntly, "Well then, why don't you?"
The Italian replied, "Because you're speaking German, that's why."

From what we have said so far, it should be clear that a large number of
factors influence language choice, and many factors may work either with or against
each other, producing a complex web of interaction which makes the task of
describing any one language-choice event extremely difficult. The suggested division
of factors into two categories may be of some help, but it must be recognized that
some factors may exhibit the characteristics of both preferences and constraints,
making it impossible to locate them satisfactorily in either of the two categories. It is
difficult to determine at which point a negative preference — an intense dislike of a
particular language, for example — becomes a constraint. A positive constraint,
likewise, may exhibit some of the characteristics of a preference. A more useful
approach might be to try and plot these factors somewhere along an axis which
represents a continuous gradation between positive forces directing choice towards a
specific language, and negative forces directing choice away from that language.

Finally, it needs to be recognized that language choice events do not exist in a

vacuum. Language is, after all, a medium for interaction and communication between
 people, and the use of language will reflect the infinite complexity of human
relationships.

B. Bilingual and Multilingual

C. Code Switching
Code Switching is described as a skill of the bilingual speaker Code-switching is a
term in linguistics referring to using more than one language or variety in
conversation. Sometimes the bilingual speakers getting problem when they having a
conversation with another bilingual, so they switches their language from code to
another in the construction of sentence to make the interlocutor understand,
sometimes they do it with the same language background and it may do so many
times.
Code switching is the one of alternative way to bilingual of two or
more languages in the same conversation. Hymes (1974) defines code-switching as
“a common term for alternative use of two or more languages, varieties of a language
or even speech styles” while Bokamba (1989) defines code-switching is the
mixing of words, phrases and sentences from two distinct grammatical (sub)
systems across sentence boundaries within the same speech event.

In the class, when the teacher teaches a foreign language code switching also
become strategies learning in order to develop the students skill in English language.
In the beginning of meeting the teacher uses target language when they explain the
material and then they switch again into Indonesia to make sure understood for
the students. The student uses the target language as much as possible but
reverts to their native language for any element of an utterance that they are unable
to produce in the target language.

For example:
“Good morning class….” , well my students, today we would like to study about
Code switching…. (the beginning of the class)
“Selamat pagi kelas (anak-anak)…”, hari ini kita akan belajar tentang alih
bahasa…..

Excuse me ms… I want to ask some question! (students asking)

Permisi bu..saya ingi bertanya!

“Actually I agree about your statement, but I think it is better if….”

Saya setuju dengan pendapat kamu, tapi mungkin lebih baik jika..”
 Generally, there are different perspectives on code-switching. A major
approach in sociolinguistics focuses on the social motivations for switching,
a line of inquiry concentrating both on immediate discourse factors such as
lexical need and the topic and setting of the discussion, and on more distant
factors such as speaker or group identity, and relationship-building (solidarity).
Code-switching may also be reflective of the frequency with which an individual
uses particular expressions from one or the other language in his daily
communications; thus, an expression from one language may more readily come
to mind than the equivalent expression in the other language

Code-switching can occur between sentences (intersentential) or within

a single sentence (intrasentential). There are four major types of switching:
(a) Tag-switching, in which tags and certain set phrases in one language
are inserted into an utterance otherwise in another
For example:

Teacher: “benar, that’s a good answer”!

Tabipun, Now we come to the sociolinguistics class.

“Bagus, good job Santi”!
Write geh, do not only read!

The words “that’s a good answer” can be considered a tag. Sometimes,

emblematic code-switching or tag switching can take the form of
intrasentential switching where categorical equivalence exists between the two
languages involved.

(b) Intrasentential switching, in which switches occur within a clause or sentence

boundary. It can take the form such as, code changing, code mixing, insertion
and congruent lexicalizations.
For example:
Menurutku that’s a good idea!
“open your matrik book and kerjakan page 10”!
Can you please tell me kalimat apa ini?
I’ll give you a gift kalau kalian bisa jawab
 From example above includes code-changing or complete shifts to another
language system at major constituent boundaries.
(c) Intersentential switching, in which a change of language occurs at sentence
levels, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other.
For example:
T: “Have you done your homework,
S:Sudah,Ms!
T : May I see?
S : ini Ms!

T : look at the picture and fill the blanks.

S : yang mana Ms?
T : On page 30
From example above intersentential code switches was to relate speech that had
already occurred in other conversations in English. And it more frequent than
intrasentential.

(d) Intra-word switching, in which a change occurs within a word

boundary.

For example:

ujian hari ini open book!

Listeningnya pake speaker Jurusan
Lesson Plan kamu dah siap belum?
Scoring system IAIN seperti itu 50% final test, 30% mid test, dan 20% daily
performances
In other hand, Milroy and Pieter (1995: 8) define code switching “as a
term ‘intra sentential’ used for switches within the sentence, in contrast with
‘intersentential’ used for switches between sentences”. Although some
commentators have seen code-switching as reflecting a lack of language
ability, most contemporary scholars consider code-switching to be a normal
and natural product of interaction between the bilingual or multilingual speaker’s
languages.
D. Code Mixing
Code-mixing is the other phenomenon closely related to code-switching. Code
mixing takes place without a change of topic and can involve various levels of
language such as phonology, morphology, grammatical structures or lexical
items.

We could not avoid that the first language is a big effect in second
language. Interaction and mixing between languages result in various languages.
Most of the people in the society mix their language with other language by
borrowing or using pieces of foreign languages even sometimes they are still
influenced by first language.

Kachru in Nusjam (2004) defines code mixing as the term refers to the
use of one or more languages for consistent transfer of linguistic units from
one language into another, and by such a language mixture developing a new
restricted or not so restricted code of linguistic interaction.

Related to Kachru defines above, we can see the reality in the class, when
students saying something in English, they mix some language in the sentence
that they don’t know how to say in English it means combine the language
between Indonesia and English.

For example:

“have you done your homework hasan? Yes Ms, saya sudah kerja my homework.”

Excuse me mom, kemarin I was sick.

From example above, the student use the peace of English word to
answer the teacher’s question, it because the student does not know how to
say in English. But grammatically the sentence of students is also suitable
for grammar in English.
Mixing Points :
V & Obj. NP
Find the best answer dan lanjut ke next page
NP & NP
Kalau mau lulus, Listening skill dan speaking skillnya harus bagus
Prep & Obj. NP
Baca teksnya on the previous
page
Ind bound morp & Engl free morpheme
T: Ayo Didi di-mix aja dengan bahasa Indonesia
S: Maaf Ms, saya sudah nge-
blank
N&V
Lihat task 1 and do it
Conj & NP
Judul and content jurnalnya menarik
Eng Adj & Ind Adj
Simple dan sederhana tulisannya

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

From describing above we can say that code mixing is using two
or more language in the same sentence or discourse but one language more
dominant, and it related with the social context as a function of choosing the
code.
E. The Differences Concept Between Code Mixing And Code Switching

When we discuss about the differences between code switching and code
mixing, both of them have the strong similarities, even we are difficult to find
the difference between them.

The similarities of them just it the function when we use two or more
languages as a variant language in speech community. But the differences
are in code switching, switch language event or variety of languages by the
bilingual because of certain reason and consciously. While code mixing, the use
of pieces of another language to one language that is needed probably, has the
function and it is not considered as a wrong or deviation. Like in our country, a
bilingual sometimes slipped a pieces of language in conversation it can be said
he or she did code mixing.

Thelander quoted by Chaer and Leony (2004:115) tried to differ between

code switching and code mixing. He said that code switching is speech event is
became there is a switched from one clause of language to clause of other
language. While, when speech event become, the clauses or phrases is consist of
hybrid clauses and hybrid phrases and all of they are not support each other is
called as Code mixing.

From the previous study of experts to differ between code mixing

and code switching it is difficult to make differentiation both of them, because
there are still the some concepts of rule that have to paid attention to make it
clear.