CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
In the recent era of globalization, most of the people around the world are well aware about
the importance of mastering several languages for self-development. Apart of own
satisfaction and the willingness to learn, individuals tend to master languages to seek for
career opportunities in which it will become a ‘plus-point’ for them to be employed. Besides,
recently it becomes a new trend in the society where people tend to speak two or more
languages in their conversation. Besides the individuals, the practice of code mixing also
occurs in teaching and learning environments, for example at schools, and educational
educations. According to Abdullah A. Alenezi (2010) , as cited in Baker, code mixing helps
the educators in stressing important points while teaching the students, in which helps the
students to understand better in their learning.
1.1 Background of the study
In the study of linguistics, two important concepts related to second language learning is code
mixing and code switching. According to Lau, Cheng, Tan and Choo (2011), as cited in
Musysken (2000), “code-mixing occurs when lexical items and grammatical features of two
or more languages exist in the same sentence”. Meanwhile, Nilep (2006) defined code
switching as “the practice of selecting or altering linguistic elements so as to contextualize
talk in interaction”. These mean that individuals who practicing code mixing in conversation
1
tend to use two or more languages while speaking with others, based on the languages that
they have known or mastered. The focus of the present study is on code mixing.
Code mixing is a common practice in many societies that use two or more languages in their
daily lives. Malaysia is an excellent example of such a place. We know that people in
Malaysia come from various background and cultures and of course, they speak different
languages as well. The need to be part of a society makes people code switch and code mix a
lot in their daily conversation. According to Leung (2010), “code-mixing is a common
phenomenon in communities of heterogeneity”, and this is supported by Heler (1988), as cited
in Bishop (2006) who states that the usage of code switching or code mixing has long been
used “as the way of conversing”. Leung (2010) contends that “the code-mixing phenomenon
cannot be separated from the fact that many people these days are bilingual, trilingual or even
multilingual”. These mean that the usage of code mixing is no longer a new thing.
Currently, code mixing is not only a part of daily speech; it is also widely used in
advertisements, both print and non-print advertisements. Research on the usage of code
mixing in advertisements has been examined in many countries. According to Leung (2010),
the usage of code mixing in Hong Kong advertisements is common and is even a trend. It is
said that code mixing in advertisements is more effective as a persuasive device in multiethnic
populations (Bishop, 2006).
2
1.2 Statement of Problem
In multiracial Malaysia, there is a diversity of languages but English continues to command
considerable respect and prestige (Rajadurai, 2004). Venugopal (2003) examined the practice
of code mixing and code switching between English and Malay in two Malaysian business
organizations and concluded that Malaysian English emerged as the unmarked choice in
Malaysian business rather than standard British English. She observed the consistent use of
localized speech variations. Preshouse (2001) examined the linguistic characteristics, with a
particular emphasis on lexical features, of Malaysian English. The present study adds to this
existing body of knowledge by examining code mixing practices that infuse the English
language in ESL students’ daily conversations. The issue of code mixing has been highly
debated, especially in Malaysia, in which somehow affecting students’ language learning
comprehension.
The issue of code mixing in Malaysia has also being highlighted in newspapers stated that
code mixing leads to the “ruining” of the dignity of the mother tongue, or Bahasa Melayu
(Harian Metro, 2011). The articles also emphasised on what the Indonesians think about
Malaysian, who are not firm enough to “stand” for their own language, which is Bahasa
Melayu. On the other hand, Azu Farhana Anuar and Bahiyah Ahmad (2014), in their study
stated that the use of English as the medium of instructions in classes with the interference of
mother tongue influence has made the code mixing issue to be broadened, and this affects the
usage of the languages itself. Therefore, this study will explore on how Malaysian, especially
the ESL learners feel about code mixing in conversation and provide suggestions on
improving the dignity of the mother tongue of the Malaysians.
3
1.3 Research Objectives
The objectives of the study are to:
1) To identify the tendency of ESL students to code mix in their daily conversation;
2) To determine the preference of ESL students for code-mixing conversation.
3) To examine students’ reaction to code mixing in Malaysia;
1.4 Research Questions
1) What are the tendencies of ESL students to code mix in their daily conversation?
2) What are the students’ preferences of code mixing in Malaysia?
3) How do the ESL students react to code mixing in conversation?
1.5 Significance of the study
The finding of the study serves as a useful guide to any organization that aims to enhancing
the learning of languages in Malaysia, for instance, the Ministry of Education as well as the
Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture. By being aware of how ESL students
react to code-mixing, actions can be taken by these organizations to improve on language
learning for students. This study will also be useful for the students in order to improve their
language learning skills. Apart from that, this study will also serve as a useful resource for
other researchers who are interested in the study of code-mixing practices.
4
1.6 Limitations of the study
The present study is confined to the analysis of only 80 samples of the research using
Questionnaire and Unstructured interview. Questionnaires were distributed to only 80
respondents and this too limits the possibility of the generalizing the findings into larger
population, where cooperation from the respondents might not be easy to obtain.
5
1.7 Operational Definitions
1.7.1 Code Switching
Scotton (1988), as cited in Bishop (2006) defined code switching as “the use of two or
more linguistic varieties in a same conversation, whether they are different language,
styles or dialects” (p.201). For example, while conversing with one another,
individuals tend to use two different languages or dialects, based on their own
knowledge about the languages. For the purpose of this study, code switching means
converting to one language or dialect to another while speaking.
1.7.2 Code-mixing
“Code-mixing occurs when lexical items and grammatical features of two or more
languages exist in the same sentence” (Lau, Cheng, Tan and Choo, 2011, cited in
Muysken, 2000). This statement means that individuals use more than one language
while speaking to one another. For the purpose of this study, code mixing means using
different languages or dialects within the same sentence.
1.7.3 Bilingual
“Bilingualism is a concept often associated with code-switching as a speaker must be
able to perform more than a language in order to code switch” (Choy, 2011). Similar
to code switching, bilingual tends to use two different languages or dialects in
speaking, based on the situation. For the purpose of this study, bilingual means
individual who are converting to one language or dialect to another while conversing.
6
1.8 Summary
This chapter provides an overview of the study in which stresses on code mixing practices
among ESL students in Malaysia. The statement of problem has been defined and the research
questions for the study are outlined. Definitions on terms used are also listed for better
understanding of the present study. The next chapter will review on the previous studies
conducted based on this subject matter.
7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter reviews on the literature from previous studies, which consists of four sections.
The first section covers on Bilingualism in Malaysia, the second section covers on the
definitions and the previous studies on Code-Switching and Code-Mixing. The third section
will explain about Code-mixing and Code Switching applied in Malaysia while the last
section presents conceptual framework of the review.
2.1 Bilingualism in Malaysia
People are all aware that bilingualism occurs within people who are living in multiracial
countries, in which the needs to be part of the society make people to be bilingual. Jordaan
(2008) stated “bilinguals” as “individuals who have been regularly and consistently exposed
to two languages in a variety of contexts”. On the other hand, Bloomfield (1933) defined
bilingualism as “the native-like control of two languages” (as cited in Choy, 2011).
In Malaysia, this phenomenon has already occurs years ago. People are aware that the citizens
in Malaysia consist of Malays, Chinese, Indians and other races who speak different
languages. Besides using Bahasa Melayu, Chinese or Tamil, the usage of English language is
also commonly practices in Malaysia, as it becomes the second most important language to be
learnt and master.
8
Based on a study by Lau et al (2011) stated that “Malaysian who have a good command in
English often code mix into Malay, Chinese and Tamil”. Õzog (1993) in the other hand stated
that “Malaysia had a long tradition of English medium and bilingualism which effectively
came to an end as a direct result of communal pressure in 1970”. This indicates that people
in Malaysia have tendency to be bilingual, especially using English, Malay, Chinese and
Tamilis due to the fact that they are well exposed to the situation in which varieties of
languages being conversed in their surroundings.
People around the world are not only bilingual in their daily conversations, but also in other
environments or situations. Gaudard (1992) indicates that bilingual does not only exist in the
national education co curriculum, but also in many officially sanctioned forms (as cited in
Bauldauf, 1994). To relate this statement with bilingualism in Malaysia, a study by Parilah
Mohd Shah and Fauziah Ahmad (2007) revealed that “bilingual education in Malaysia can be
described in terms what main language instruction is provided in schools”. Based on this
statement, bilingualism also occurs in education. This proved that the wide exposure to
bilingualism leads Malaysian to be bilingual, or multilingual.
2.2 Code-switching and Code Mixing
According to Scotton (1988), as cited in Bishop (2006) defined code switching as “the use of
two or more linguistic varieties in a same conversation, whether they are different language,
styles or dialects” (p.201). In other study by Nilep (2006) defined code switching as “the
practice of selecting or altering linguistic elements so as to contextualize talk in interaction”.
Meanwhile, Meyerhoff (2011) in her book “Introducing Sociolinguistic: Second Edition”
9
defined code switching, or alternatively called code mixing as “the alternation between
varieties, or codes, across sentences or clause boundaries” (p.121). She also added that there
are two types of code switching, which are domain-based or situational code switching and
metaphorical. (2011:120). On the other hand, code mixing, according to Lau, Cheng, Tan and
Choo (2011), stated that code mixing arises when the use of different lexical items and
grammatical elements occur in the same conversation. These definitions mean that there are
some slight different between code switching and code mixing.
Choy (2011) clearly explained the two types of code switching. He stated that situational code
switching can occur by the adjustment of circumstances in a conversation or speech such as
the change in participant, topic or setting. On the other hand, Metaphorical or conversational
code-switching, functions as a tactic in conversational to support conversational acts such as
an apology, request, complaint or refusal (Choy, 2011).
Code switching, or alternatively called code mixing is no longer a new thing in the whole
wide world, and Malaysia shows no exception to this. Besides, numbers of studies had been
conducted to review on this matter. According to Leung (2010), “code mixing is a common
phenomenon in communities of high heterogeneity”. In addition to that, Heller (1988), as
cited in Bishop (2006) explained that the use of code switching has already become “ the way
of conversing”, which means that majority of the people in the world use code switching or
code mixing in their daily conversation.
Holmes (1992) in her book “An Introduction to Sociolinguistics” stated that people tend to
easily code switch based on the situation they are facing (p.41). She also added that most of
the time people are unconscious about using code switching when conversing with one
10
another (p.52). These are supported with the studies by Leung (2010) and Choy (2011).
Leung stated that the use of code mixing can be necessary as it helps people to improve on
relationship with one another as well as to adapt in any situation they are in (2010). He also
added that the existence of code switching or code mixing could be due to the fact that the
people around the world or who are living in multiracial community tend to be bilingual, or
even trilingual, so the way they converse emerged from the daily usage of multiple languages
which causes to code mixing. These statements are somewhat related with the statements on
bilingualism in which has been explained in the previous section.
On the other hand, a study by Lowi (2005) also supported Holmes (1992) where she stated
that “code switching is also viewed as a bilingual/multilingual practice that is used not only
as a conversational tool, but also as a way to establish, maintain and delineate ethnic
boundaries and identities”. Meanwhile, Choy (2011) stated that “code switching is more
likely to occur in order for communication to be successful among speakers from different
social background”, in which means that code mixing can lead to a better communication
between one another.
2.3 Code Switching or Code Mixing in Malaysia
As all aware that Malaysia is a country where many races and cultures living “under the same
roof”. So, there is no exception for Malaysian for not being multilingual in their daily
conversation. Apart of using their mother tongue, they also use Bahasa Melayu, as it is the
compulsory language in learning especially in schools or other educational institutions.
Besides that, English is also widely used in Malaysia, in which has become the most
11
important second language in the country. The usage of these languages in daily conversation
can easily lead to code mix.
Kamisah Ariffin and Misyana Susanti Husin (2011) in their study on the frequency of code
mixing communicative behavior among instructors and students revealed that this
communicative behavior is commonly used in the classroom. Based on the study, they figured
out that code mixing leads to a better understanding to the students in the learning process.
This supports the study from Choy (2011), where he indicates that successful communication
among speakers with dissimilar demographical background can be derived with code
switching or code mixing.
Besides that, Choy (2011) also revealed that the widespread code switching and code mixing
has emerged into the development of technology and various types of non-verbal
communication devices, for instance in text messaging, e-mails as well as social networking
websites. He also added that the educational system in Malaysia encourages students to learn
more than one language as an addition to the native mother tongue prior to the prescribed
education. Furthermore, Choy (2011) related code switching and code mixing with the term
“Bahasa Rojak” or salad language in which is commonly used in conversations among
Malaysian.
Meanwhile, Lau et al. (2011) in their study mentioned that code mixing is well received in
Malaysia especially among Malaysians who are not fluent to converse in English. As English
become the most important second language to be learnt and mastered, those who are not
fluent to speak in English have higher tendency to code mix in their speech, “which centers
on speakers” interlacement of the national language with English terms” (Asmah, 1992, as
cited in Lau et al, 2011).
12
The researcher agreed with these statements due to the fact that where that in the recent years,
the practice of code mixing has become a part of people’s life, where people feel more
comfortable to code mix in their conversations. However, the researcher also feels that there
is a need to overcome the ‘over used’ of code mixing practices because it might lead to the
“downfall” of the dignity of the languages used in individuals’ daily conversations.
2.4 Conceptual Framework
.
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework
This study stressed on the usage of different languages and dialects among ESL students in
conversing with one another, or also called, code mixing. The individuals, who are used to
their own mother tongue, tend to code mix with one another when they are already adapting
other languages in their learning. The reason for the individuals to code mix might be due to
the common practice by the society, which lead them to mix languages during conversation.
According to Choy (2011), related code switching and code mixing with the term “Bahasa
13
Adapting other languages
Adapting other languages
Code mixing practice
Code mixing practice
Mother tongue influence
Mother tongue influence
Rojak” or salad language in which is commonly used in conversations among Malaysian. The
need to be part of the society also leads individuals to code mix.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter describes the method used in collecting the data. The overall processes of data
collection as well as the procedures involved are explained in this chapter.
3.1 Research Design
This study applies mixed-method approach, where a simple survey will be conducted for data
collections. The study will be focusing on the tendency of ESL students to code mix and how
do they react to code mixing practice in conversation. A set of questionnaire will be prepared
to be used as the collection of data. The questionnaires will be consisted with two sections;
Section A and B which covered the demographical background of the respondents and how
they react to the code mixing in conversation
After some revision, the questionnaires are then to be distributed to 80 respondents, who are
the ESL learners of three universities; UiTM, UniSEL and Multimedia University. An
unstructured interview will also be conducted. Analysis on the data collected from the
questionnaires and the interview will be carried out and the results from the findings will be
identified. These are the research design needed to conduct this study.
14
3.2 Population and Sample Selection
The major target population for this study is the ESL learners from three universities around
Shah Alam. It is preferred to target on the students from higher education for this study
because it covers on the preference of code mixing in conversation, in which commonly
practiced among youths in the recent years. The sample of this study will be selected using
Simple Random Samplings.
3.3 Research Instruments
3.3.1 Questionnaire
It is decided that the distribution of a questionnaire would be the best way of examining the
reaction of ESL students in Malaysia to code mixing practices. The questionnaire are adapted
from a study by Dong Wenjing (n.d), based on the objectives and three research questions of
the study. Amendments on the questionnaire are also made based on the research objectives
and research questions related to the topic. Each questionnaire comprised of two sections with
a total of 13 questions to be completed by the respondents. Section A covers on the
demographical background of the respondents such as age, gender, years of learning English
and the respondents’ first language;. Section B covers on the students’ preferences and
reaction to code mixing in conversation. The questions are multiple choice questions, and for
some questions, the respondents will be given the opportunity to choose more than one
15
answer. The respondents will be asked to answer all questions in the questionnaire. (Refer to
the Appendix)
3.3.2 Unstructured Interview
The second instrument to be used in this study is unstructured interview. The purpose of using
this instrument in this study is to determine on the ESL students’ opinions about code mixing
and what factors lead them to code mix in conversation. On the other hand, the researcher also
would like to obtain the suggestions or ideas from the respondents about the highly debated
issue of code mixing in Malaysia, and how they truly feel about this issue. Simple
spontaneous questions will be asked to the respondents regarding the issue of code mixing.
3.4 Data Collection
Before the study will be conducted, amendments will be made to the questionnaire adapted
from Dong Wenjing (n.d) so that it will be ‘in line’ with the purpose of the study to be
conducted. A cover letter by the Dean which explains on the purpose this study will be
endorsed together with the questionnaire during the distribution of the questionnaire to the
respondents. The respondents will be given some time to complete the questionnaire. After
the respondents have completed all of the questions, the questionnaire will be collected by the
researcher for the analysis of the data. The researcher will then conduct the unstructured
interview to 10 of the respondents, in which each interview will be recorded. The data
collected from the questionnaire will be analyzed and the interviews will later be transcribed.
16
Figure 1.2 below shows on the stages about how the study will be conducted.
Figure 1.2: Data Collection Flowchart
17
Questionnaire is adapted from a study by Dong Wenjing (n.d)
Make amendments to the questionnaire based on the topic related to this study
Distribute questionnaire to the targeted samples
Analyze data from the questionnaire, and make transcription to the unstructured interview conducted
Conducting an unstructured interview to 10 samples
3.5 Data Analysis
The results from the completed questionnaire will then be analyzed and the results will be
tabulated. After that, the results will be summarized into descriptive statistic, in which the
results are measured into percentages. For the information gathered from the unstructured
interview, the transcription scripts will be read, and notes will be taken.
18
Research Questions Instruments Method of Analysis1) What are the
tendencies of ESL students to code mix in their daily conversation?
a) Survey questionnaire Section B – 9
items
- Descriptive statistic- The data is analyzed
based on the percentage of the chosen answers by the respondents (Multiple choice questions)
2) What are the students’ preferences of code mixing in Malaysia?
a) Survey questionnaire Section B – 9
items
b) Unstructured interview (Questions are prepared spontaneously)
- Descriptive statistic - The data is analyzed
based on the percentage of the chosen answers by the respondents (Multiple choice questions)
- Reading and transcribing
- Identifying themes
3) How do ESL students react to code mixing in conversation?
a) Survey questionnaire Section B – 9
items
b) Unstructured Interview (Questions are prepared spontaneously)
- Descriptive statistic - The data is analyzed
based on the percentage of the chosen answers by the respondents (Multiple choice questions)
- Reading and transcribing
- Identifying themes
19
Table 1.1: Method of Data Analysis
Appendix
20
QUESTIONNAIRE
EDU 702 – RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Topic:
A Study on Code Mixing Among ESL Students in UiTM, UniSel and Multimedia University
The purpose of this study is to identify the ESL students’ preference regarding Code Mixing or “Bahasa Rojak” in daily conversation. This questionnaire consists of three (2) sections; Section A and Section B, adapted and adopted from studies by Dong Wenjing, retrieved from http://survey.askform.cn/109192-177924.aspx. Please complete ALL questions. Thank you for your cooperation.
Section A - Demography
1. Gender Male Female
2. Age 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 and above
3. Years of learning English
5 – 10 years 10 – 15 years 15 years and above
4. First language : (Please indicate your first language) ______________________________________
Section B – ESL Students’ tendency and preference on Code Mixing in conversation
5. How often do you code mix in your daily conversation?a. Oftenb. Sometimesc. Seldomd. Never
6. When you code mix, it is usually for….a. A whole clauseb. A clausec. A complete phrased. Just a few words
7. What is your purpose to code mix? (You can choose more than one answers)a. Emphasizing thingsb. No matching wordsc. Language limitationd. Social belonging
21
e. Other: (Please specify) _________________________________________
8. In your opinion, which factor most leads to code mix in conversation?a. Linguistic elementsb. Situational factors (participants, setting, topics)c. Social identityd. Easier to retrieve words from your braine. Others: (Please specify) ________________________________________
9. In your opinion, is it relevant for people to code mix in their conversation?a. Absolutelyb. Informally, yes.c. Depends on situationd. Not relevant at all.e. Others: (Please specify) ________________________________________
10. Do you think code mix is harmful to your English? a. Yes: (Please indicate) ____________________________________________b. No: (Please indicate) _____________________________________________
11. Do you think code mix is harmful to your mother tongue, which is Bahasa Melayu?a. Yes, it is harmful because (Please specify) ________________________________
__________________________________________________________________b. No, it is not harmful because (Please specify) ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________
12. Is Malay-English code mixing helpful to your English? (You may choose more than one answer )a. Yes, it increases my confidence in speaking Englishb. Yes, it helps me memorize English words effectivelyc. No, (Please specify) _____________________________________________
13. Which of the following applies to you?a. Code mixing contributes to my English language learningb. Code mixing interferes my English language learning c. Code mixing has nothing good or bad to my English language learning
Thank you
22
REFERENCES
Alenezi, A. A. (2010). Students' Language Attitude Towards Using Code-Switching as a Medium of Instruction in College of Health Sciences: An Exploratory Study. ARECLS , Vol.7, 1-22.
Jordaan, H. (2008). Clinical Intervention for Bilingual Children: An International Survey. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica , 97-105.
Ariffin, K., & Husin, M. S. (2011). Code-switching and Code-mixing of English and Bahasa Malaysia in Content-Based Classrooms: Frequency and Attitudes.The Linguistics Journal, 5(1).
Bishop, M. M. (2007). The role of language codeswitching in increasing advertising effectiveness among Mexican-American youth.
Bishop, M. M., & Peterson, M. (2010). The impact of medium context on bilingual consumers' responses to code-switched advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 55-67.
Choy, W. F. (2011). Functions and reasons for code-switching on facebook by UTAR English-Mandarin Chinese bilingual undergraduates (Doctoral dissertation, UTAR).
Gaudart, H. 1992. Bilingual education in Malaysia. Townsville, Australia: JamesCook University. [South East Asian Studies Monograph No. 33.]
Gómez Cerdeño, T. (2010). The use of foreign words as a persuasive tool in Marketing discourse: the cultural stereotype of Global English in Spanish print advertising (Doctoral dissertation).
23
Hashim, A. (2010). Print advertisements in Malaysia. World Englishes, 29(3), 378-393
Holmes J.(1992). Code-switching or code-mixing. Language Choice in Multilingual Communities. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (p.41-52). United Kingdom, UK. Longman Group UK Limited 1992.
Leung, C. H. (2010). Code-mixing in print advertisement and its cultural implications in Hong Kong. European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(3), 417-429.
Lowi, R. (2005). Codeswitching: An Examination of Naturally Occurring Conversation. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4 th international symposium on bilingualism (pp. 1393-1406)
Anuar, A. F., & Abdul Hamid, B. (2014). Malay-English Alternation Insertion at Morphological Level In Facebook Among University Students. International Conference of Humanity Sciences and Education ICHE2014. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: worldresearchconference.com.
Meyerhoff M. (2011). Code Switching and Code Mixing. Multilingualism and Language Choice.(2nd ed.) Introducing Sociolinguistics (p.120). London and New York, NY. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Nair‐Venugopal, S. (2000). English, identity and the Malaysian workplace. World Englishes, 19(2), 205-213.
Nilep, C. (2006). Code switching in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado research in linguistics, 19, 1-22.
Preshouse, A. (2001). Where you going ah?. English Today, 17(1), 46-53.
Rajadurai, J. (2004). The faces and facets of English in Malaysia. English Today, 20(4), 54-58.
24
Mohd Shah, P., & Ahmad, F. (2007). A Comparative Account of the Bilingual Education Programs in Malaysia and the United States. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies , Vol. 7(2).
Harian Metro (2011). Menangani Isu Bahasa Rojak. Retrived from http://www2.hmetro.com.my/myMetro/articles/Menanganiisubahasarojak/Article/index_html, on 23rd June 2015.
Dong Wenjing (n.d). Questionnaire on How Bilingual Perceived Code. Retrieved from http://survey.askform.cn/109192-177924.aspx on 5th May 2015.
25