Code Switching in Teaching English in SMK SwastaTeladan Medan

Juni Fitri Pasaribu

junipasaribu@yahoo.com

Abstract

.

This study presented a research conducted on Code Switching in an English teaching. It set out to

investigate a teacher’s code switching between English and Indonesian in a classroom and to observe

the awareness of the actual use of code switching in the classroom. A qualitative descriptive research

was applied. And the analyses of code switching were based on Poplack’s (1980) division of code

switching, namely intra-sentential, inter-sentential, and tag switching. The data were taken from class

observations at SMK Swasta Teladan Medan during the English teaching-learning processes. They

were collected in relation to the observation of code switching during the teacher’s explanation when

presenting the lessons. The types of code switching, the reasons why the teacher used code switching,

the benefits of teacher’s code switching, and the code switching episodes were identified, transcribed,

and analyzed. Based on the analysis, it was found that there were 47 code switching consisting of 23

intra-sentential (49%), 12 inter-sentential (25.5%), and 12 tag switching (25.5%). Inter-sentential and

tag switching happened because of the teacher’s unconsciousness, while Intra-sentential switching as

the dominant type of code switching happened because of the awareness of the teacher. In

conclusion, a foreign language teacher has a tendency to use code switching in the teaching-learning

processes because of the requirement in teaching-learning English, the teacher’s easiness of

expression, repetition of main points, and socialization of the unfamiliar terms. Therefore, it is

suggested that an English as Foreign Language (EFL) teacher can always apply code switching for

the success of teaching learning processes in the classroom.

Keywords : Code Switching, intra-sentential, inter-sentential, and tag switching

1. The Background of the Study

English, which is regarded as a global language, is used to fulfill people’s desire to

communicate and keep in touch. There is no legal decision or law which states English as the global

language. So, why do we use English? Here’s an analogy. In corporate, we want to give a valuable

project to a person who is tough and flexible. We want to work together with a firm company. We

refer English as a firm company which is tough and flexible. English doesn’t focus too much to

another culture or certain way of life. English is considered a neutral language nowadays. Moreover,

English speaking countries conquered most part of the world. They were powerful that day. In the

world’s law, the strong will take over and we will follow its way and rule. It makes English well-

known around the world as the global language. It is a required knowledge to pin in the global

environment. It means it is used worldwide now. Every non-English speaking country is obliged the

students to learn English early in their childhood. It happens because English is used in every major

of life. English is used in Economy, Banking, Politics, Science, etc. Moreover in this globalization

and free trade era, people from other nation will go to other nations freely with no boundaries. These

situations will continue to happen in the future. The whole world will be through that situation

including Indonesia.

In dealing with that situation, in teaching-learning processes in some schools have been

using English as the medium for communication. It is estimated that between 60 and 75 percent of

the world is bilingual, and bilingual education is a common educational approach used throughout the

world. It may be implemented in different ways for majority and/or minority language populations,

and there may be different educational and linguistic goals in different countries. In Canada,

immersion education programs are designed for native speakers of the majority language (English) to

become proficient in a minority language (French), whereas heritage-language programs are

implemented to assist native speakers of indigenous and immigrant languages become proficient in

English. However, for teachers who do not have any skills in English or do not have any English

background, it is very difficult for them to teach if they use English as the medium. That is the reason

why some schools open bilingual classroom to help those teachers. Actually, it helps students too,

because not all students can speak or even understand English since they use it rarely. In Indonesia,

English is still known as a foreign language. Not like any other Association of South East Asia

Nation (ASEAN) countries which already have used English as a second language in their daily life.

In bilingualism, it is realized that two participants will communicate each other in two

languages. In that situation, there will be some switching activities take place. This activity is called

code switching. It happens if the teachers explain in English and somehow s/he may switch some

codes or terms into Indonesia, so the students may get an understanding in the teaching-learning

process. However, there are many questions appearing from that activity. For example, what kinds of

code switching do the teachers use in teaching-learning process? Or how do the teachers switch the

code from English into Indonesia or vice versa? Do they follow some patterns to do it? Do they

realize or not that they use code switching in the teaching-learning processes? Do they code switch

by any particular reason? Or even the most important thing, do the students understand the lesson

well if the teacher uses two languages at the same time? It can be seen that code switching can arise

many interesting questions and phenomenon. Despite all the questions, code switching is very

interesting by seeking out how a person switches code of two different languages at the same time.

It’s interesting to discover how this activity is implemented in teaching-learning processes and gets

the benefits. In multilingual communities, code switching is a widespread phenomenon that extends

from daily life and workplaces to classrooms in which specific languages have been instituted as the

official languages of instruction. Actually, this topic is not new anymore. There were many

researchers on this topic before. But these researchers were only dealing with English and other

languages. For example, Yin Bing do researched the constraints on intra-sentential code switching in

Cantonese and English. He found that code switching will not take place at just any point in a

sentence. His result showed that it was possible to predict where switching was more likely to occur

and that it was rule-governed behavior. Another researcher, Martin’s (1996) earlier study in primary

level 4 and 5 classrooms in Brunei Darussalam revealed that code switching is the most frequent in

history lessons, followed by science and geography, with the least use in mathematics.

In language classrooms, code switching is employed to facilitate students’ comprehension at

various educational levels: kindergarten (Huerta- Macias & Quintero, 1992), secondary (Flyman-

Mattsson & Burenhult, 1999) and university (Greggio & Gil, 2007). Teachers also code switch to

repair trouble or silence in university classes (Ustunel, 2004). Alternatively, code switching is a

strategy for teachers to adapt to students’ English proficiency, teaching goals, and a teacher roles in a

university setting in China (Yang, 2004). These findings, however, are based on teachers’ reports of

their reasons for code switching.

In doing this research, SMK Swasta Teladan Medan is one of National school in Medan

which is suitable to be the place for this research.

Bilingualism is used since not all teachers of science and the students comprehend English

as their daily language. In practicing bilingualism, the teachers use code switching in every day

teaching-learning processes, even though they do not realize actually if they switch code in other

language (English) to another language (Indonesian). However, not all classes use English and

Indonesian language in the teaching-learning processes. There are two different types of class at the

same level. For each level, there is a bilingual classroom and monolingual classroom. This activity

can be seen in English teaching-learning processes. It happens because English is rich in theory

explanation.

While other subjects are using Indonesian language in teaching-learning process. That is the

reason why English is chosen to observe the implementation of code switching in teaching learning

processes. For example the awareness of how the writer show different types of code switching.

There are so many kinds of code switching from english teacher utterances. One of the interactive the

writer can founds in SMK Swasta Telada Medan SMK Swasta Telada Medan is a standard National

school

Let the writer see the following utterances:

“Ok g. Lasing with hotel porters. Berhubungan dengan porters.

Tau porters? Porters itu pembawa tas.

h. Lasing with housekeeping department.

Housekeeping apa?

Students : pelayan.

The writer can see that the utterances of the communication above are between teacher and

students. The writer can analyze the explanation based on the Poplack theory.

The writer tries to found the types of code switching uttered among the teacher and students

at SMK SWASTA TELADAN MEDAN. So, the writer would like to research the utterances of

English teacher in once a day. From the explanation above, the writer chooses code switching

analysis, because the writer wants to know the dominant type of code switching, the teacher reason

code switching, and the benefits for students. It set out to investigate a teacher’s code switching

between English and Indonesian in a classroom of English subject. Writer did observe the awareness

of the actual use of code switching in the classroom.

This study is intended to discover :

1) to find out the dominant type of code switching in the teaching-learning process,

2) to describe the reasons of teacher uses code switching in the classroom, and

3) to find out the benefits for students if their teacher uses code-switching in the teaching-learning

process.

This study is expected to be useful practically and theoretically.

1) Theoretically, this study is expected to give good contribution for the education practitioners to be

a reflection of their bilingual class and can be used to evaluate how far we treated our students in

bilingual circumstances. Who knows, we will find the moment to improve our teaching processes

future.

2) Practically,

1. By having this research; teachers can use code switching in delivering their subjects in a

bilingual circumstance. Moreover, the result of this study will practically provide valuable

information to the teachers in their attempts to decide to use code switching to help them since

they have low proficiency in foreign language that they have to use.

2. The findings of this research are expected to help English teachers in analyzing their students’

needs and language proficiency so that they can code switch from their native language (NL)

to foreign language (FL) without worry that the students will find difficulty in understanding

the teachers’ explanation.

3. This research is expected to those who want to conduct further research since this study is

useful as a trigger and the grounds in conducting further research related to code switching in

another field.

The analysis of types code switching in a bilingual teaching of English is based on the code

switching theory. In this way, theoretical framework is aimed at giving clear concepts applied in this

research. Some terms are used in this study. Theoretically they need to be explained to avoid

misinterpretation of the terms.

Sociolinguistics

When people interact with others in society at anytime and anywhere they must use a

language. Without a language, people will find some troubles when they do their activities and

toward others. There are no people or society without language. The role of a language among people

in this life is very crucial. The study of linguistics reveals that language and society cannot be

separated to be investigated. It develops into sociolinguistics or the sociology of language. Fishman

(1970: 3) says that, ‘sociolinguistics is the study of the characteristics of the speaker as these three

constantly interact and change one another within a speech community’. In addition, Holmes (1992:

1) says that sociolinguistics is concerned with the relationship between language and the context in

which it is used. Examining the way people use language in different social contexts provides a

wealth information about the way language works, as well as about the social relationships in a

community, and the way people signal aspects of their social identity through the language.

Sociolinguistics actually does not discuss a structure of a language, but it focuses on how a

language is used, so it could play its function well. From this statement, we can get a description that

people also face language conflicts before sociolinguistics appears. So it is clear now that the role of

sociolinguistics is to manage a language as its functions in society, or in other words sociolinguistics

deals with a language as means of communication.

Bilingualism

The term of bilingualism has been introduced years before by some researchers regarding

that learning, speaking and using two languages may affect fundamental aspects in linguistics

systems and cognitive and neural development, potentially influencing the way these systems learn

and represent information.

Many linguists had attempted to elaborate what bilingualism is by giving statements.

Beardsmore (1982 : 2), for example, states : “It seems obvious that if we are to study the

phenomenon of bilingualism. We are forced to consider it as something entirely relative. We must

moreover include the use not only of two languages, but of any number of languages. We shall

therefore consider bilingualism as the alternate use of two or more languages by the same individual.

”The definition of bilingualism has not only been given but also has been elaborated from the

perspective of personal understanding. However, another definition (Beardsmore, 1982: 2) of this

term could be accepted. “Bilingualism is the condition in which two living languages exist side by

side in a country, each spoken by one national group, representing a fairly large proportion of the

people.” Generally, a bilingual speaker uses two languages that differ in speech sounds, vocabulary,

syntax, etc. A bilingual’s native language and non-native language will be referred to as the first

language (L1) and the second language (L2). L1 is generally used as a bilingual’s dominant or more

proficient language.

The linguistic differences sometimes are large as between English and Chinese that belong

to two different language families which have different phonological, morphological, syntactical

systems; but some others are small, as between English and Germanic language which belong to the

same branch language family. As has been presented in the linguists’ definitions provided above, it

must be made clear from the outset that the term bilingualism does not necessarily restrict itself to

situations where only two languages are involved but is often used as a shorthand form to embrace

cases of multi or pluralingualism. Rather than attempting to provide a definition of bilingualism,

which, in the present state of our knowledge about language in general, is likely to be unsatisfactory,

most specialists prefer to work within the framework of a typology of bilingualism which allows for a

clear delimitation of the particular area of investigation within a larger field.

Bilingual in Education

Bilingual education is a broad term that refers to the presence of two languages in

instructional settings. The term is, however, “a simple label for a complex phenomenon” that depends

upon many variables, including the native language of the students, the language of instruction, and

the linguistic goal of the program, to determine which type of bilingual education is used. Students

may be native speakers of the majority language or a minority language. The students’ native

language may or may not be used to teach content material. Bilingual education programs can be

considered either additive or subtractive in terms of their linguistic goals, depending on whether

students are encouraged to add to their linguistic repertoire or to replace their native language with

the majority language.

Bilingual education has recently been a prestige for a number of educational institutions in

Indonesia, especially the pre-university ones. Bilingual is defined as being “able to speak two

languages equally well because you have used them since you were very young” (Hornby, 2002),

which broadens it meanings to include also the written language in bilingual education or

communities. Bilingual education refers to “the use of a second or foreign language in school for the

teaching of content subjects” (Richard et.al, 1992), such as Mathematics and Physics.

People who teach foreign languages tend to think about knowledge of a second language as

what they teach rather than what student learn the product of the curriculum, language learners for

this research tradition are students in language courses who are acquiring a second language through

formal study and are typically adolescents or adults rather than younger learners. The major research

activities are dictated by problems those learners have. Foreign-language speakers typically have

noticeable accents. They also make many errors in grammar, in morphology, and in word choice.

Foreign-language learners may progress quite slowly, or they may learn at a reasonable pace but then

slow down or even stop before they achieve either error-free or fluent use of the foreign language.

Students often find foreign language classes boring (the drills, the vocabulary lists) or threatening

(the dialogues, the conversation lessons).

In attempting to solve those problems, teachers keep trying new methods of teaching foreign

languages. Popular teaching methods show regular patterns of alternation between are called

grammar/translation method and direct methods. Grammar/ Translation methods involved teaching

about the foreign language in the students’ first language with assignment that involved a lot of

reading and translation of the foreign language but relatively use of it in conversation. Direct methods

(such as the audio lingual method) may ban the use of the first language in the class room; they

emphasize direct aural/oral encounters with the second language, submersion in it, and avoidance of

stating formal rules. Nowadays, most foreign language teaching involves some mixture of these two

extremes, but considerable question remains about the best methods and whether they are the same

for all learners.

A dominant theme in research based on foreign language teaching has been the value of

contrastive analysis as a basis for teaching and as a predictor of aspects of learning. Contrastive

analysis involves analyzing two languages to see where they differ and then using the basis for

predicting errors and for developing curriculum. The assumption of contrastive analysis is that

language is act of habits; the habits established in one’s first language might work well in a second

language (positive transfer), but they might also produce errors called interference error, caused by

negative transfer. Thus, for example, contrastive analysis would predict that Spanish speakers would

have little trouble learning English plural or progressive verb forms, because Spanish has similar

forms. The English possessive, on the other hand, is structured differently from the Spanish

possessive (John’s mother versus la madre de Juan). Contrastive analysis predicts that Spanish

speaker will find it difficult to learn the English structure and suggests that it should be taught and

drilled extensively. Research based on foreign language teaching has identified many of the specific

phenomena that continue to intrigue researchers. This research tradition has alerted us to the

difficulty of perfect second language learning and to the likelihood of fossilization of nonnative

features in the speech even of advance learners. Typical error and areas of difficulty for learners of

English include the following: (1) Japanese and Chinese speakers have particular difficulty learning

where they should use articles (a and the) in English, presumably because their native languages

contain no articles and because even native English speakers find it hard to explain the rules for

articles use. (2) German and French speakers may have difficulty with the order of adverbials in

English and produce sentences such as, “ I go tomorrow to school”, which mimic the order of these

elements in their native languages (“ Ich gehe Morgan nach schule” ; “Je vais demain à l’école”) (3)

Hebrew speakers have difficulty acquiring the correct use of the English perfect and progressive

forms because Hebrew marks only tense (present, past) and makes no distinction between ongoing

and punctual actions with continued relevance to the present ( I was married eight years, versus I

Have been married eight years).

The policy on which the school bases the implementation of international classes is The Law

of National Education System: Chapter VIII, Article 33, and Item (3): about the medium of

instruction. The item says: “Foreign language can be used as a medium in certain education level to

support the students’ ability of speaking foreign language”. It means that a foreign language can be

used as the medium of instruction at a certain school level to support the students’ ability in using a

foreign language. This statement is supported by the fact that in varying degrees and amount of time

two languages, Indonesian and English are involved in education program, especially in using two

languages as medium of instruction.

The program fits into one of the three categories mentioned by Hamers and Blanc. The

category is that the instruction is given first in L1 and the students are taught until such time as they

are able to use L2 as a means of learning. This could be seen from the fact that in their first year,

students are taught mostly using L1 as medium of instruction and gradually taught using L2. Teacher

and students could be referred as bilingual, at least according to McNamara, who defines bilingual is

anyone who possesses a minimal competence in only one of the four language skills in a language

other than their mother tongue. From the observation, it could be seen that the teacher has the

minimal speaking ability. By minimal here means that at least he is able to transfer the knowledge of

math using English as the medium. Although in certain points, he mispronounces some words or

expressions and uses grammatically wrong sentences, it does not disturb the students’ understanding.

From observation, it could also be seen that the students are bilingual since they show their minimal

competence in listening to the teacher’s explanation as well as reading materials and test which are

written in English. Bilingualism doesn’t mean that the role of the first language is neglected and

totally ignored. If that is the case, the program may not be a bilingual program. Instead, it leads to

what is identified as international school program. For instance, Mayor (1994) concluded that

supporting a child’s first language assists the child to make more progress when learning a second

language in terms of the language foundation and the greater awareness of how language works.

Benefits of Being Bilingual

Many people have the capacity to learn a second language. It may be another language in the

same country or totally different language from another country. At present, several institutions and

schools offering foreign language courses are popping up through out the world. Many colleges and

universities have included some foreign language courses in their regular academic syllabus too.

While learning another language, you need to understand its basic grammar and improve vocabulary.

Being bilingual offers greater sensitivity to language, more flexibility in thinking and a better ear for

listening. It also improves a person’s understanding for the native language. It opens the door to other

cultures. Moreover, the knowledge of other languages increases the career opportunities, offering

several job options.

1. Cognitive Benefits

The bilingual people can have some specific advantages in thinking. They have two or more

words for each idea and object. Hence, a bilingual person can develop a creative thinking and an

ability to think more flexibly. The bilinguals are aware about which language should be spoken with

which person in a particular situation. Therefore, they are more sensitive to the needs of the listener

than the monolingual people. Being bilingual has a positive effect on intellectual growth. It enhances

and enriches a person’s mental development. The latest research has proved that the bilinguals are

better at IQ tests as compared to the monolinguals.

2. Character Advantages

The bilinguals are able to switch between different languages and talk to different people in

various languages. It increases a sense of self-esteem. Being bilingual creates a powerful link in

different people from different countries.

3. Curriculum Benefits

A bilingual education offers better curriculum results. The bilinguals tend to show a higher

performance in examinations and tests. It is associated with thinking benefits of bilingualism. The

bilinguals find it quite easy to learn and speak three, four or more languages.

4. Communication Advantages

The bilinguals enjoy reading and writing in different languages. They can understand and

appreciate literature in various languages. It gives a deeper knowledge of different ideas and

traditions. It helps improve the ways of thinking and behaving. The pleasures of reading poetry,

novels and magazines as well as the enjoyment of writing to family and friends are doubled for

bilinguals. They don’t face difficulties in communication while in a foreign country.

5. Cultural Advantages

Bilingualism offers an access and exposure to different cultures. Knowledge of different

languages offers a treasure of traditional and contemporary sayings, idioms, history and folk stories,

music, literature and poetry in different cultures. Due to a wider cultural experience, there is a greater

tolerance of differences in creeds and customs.

6. Employment Benefits

Being bilingual offers potential employment benefits. It offers a wider choice of jobs in

various fields. The bilinguals can get prosperous career opportunities in the retail sector, transport,

tourism, administration, secretarial work, public relations, marketing and sales, banking and

accountancy, translation, law and teaching.

Code Switching

Code switching has often been characterized by seemingly random changes from one

language to another. It has had many names and definitions, from “Spanglish” or “Tex-Mex” to code

switching, code mixing, or code changing (for the purpose of this paper, the term code refers to

different languages, or different varieties or dialects of the same language(s); e.g. Mexican Spanish or

Argentine Spanish are both codes of Spanish). Code switching may be defined as follows: the use of

more than one language by two people engaged in a speech act (Poplack, 1980; Lipski, 1985;

Gonzales-Velásquez, 1995; Myusken, 2000). It can occur between the speakers involved in a

conversation or within a speech turn of a single speaker. Code switching can appear on several

language levels including syntactic, phonological and morphological levels. A great many scholars in

sociocultural linguistics use a definition of code switching similar to Heller’s: “the use of more than

one language in the course of a single communicative episode” (Nilep, 2006: 16). Auer (1984) and

Myers-Scotton (1993), who largely disagreed on how or why code switching occurs, nonetheless

sound quite similar in their definitions of the phenomenon. Nilep (2006: 16) refers to “the alternating

use of more than one language,” while Myers-Scotton (2006: vii) mentions “the use of two or more

languages in the same conversation.” Romaine (1989) cites Gumperz (1982) as the source of this

definition. However, these definitions introduce an element not strictly present in Gumperz’s

definition (1982) : “Conversational code switching can be defined as the juxtaposition within the

same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or sub

systems.”

It is important to note that Gumperz’s (1982) original definition refers to “grammatical

systems or subsystems,” while the subsequent restatements refer to languages. While the former is

scarcely more concrete or less ambiguous than the latter, it need not be assumed that the two terms

are identical. The plural languages seems to suggest discrete varieties (as English, Spanish, Indonesia,

etc), while the more equivocal “systems or subsystems” might equally imply languages or elements

of a language, such as lexical items, syntactic constructions, and prosodic phenomena.

Speakers use communicative codes in their attempts to communicate with other language

users. Listeners use their own codes to make sense of the communicative contributions of those they

interact with. Listeners may need to shift their expectations to come to a useful understanding of

speakers’ intentions. Similarly, speakers may switch the form of their contributions in order to signal

a change in situation, shifting relevance of social roles, or alternate ways of understanding a

conversational contribution. In other words, switching codes is a means by which language users may

contextualize communication. Studies have shown that bilinguals, when discussing their own

language abilities, will often confirm that they differ when speaking to monolinguals versus

bilinguals. They may completely avoid using their L2 with monolinguals, while code switching when

conversing with bilinguals (Grosjean, 2001). Most importantly, however, is that when bilingual

speakers code switch they switch from language to language with ease and fluidity, following the

syntactic and semantic rules of both languages (Muysken, 2000). Gonzales-Velásquez (1995) states

that code switching is a linguistic option to bilingual speakers because they are proficient in both

their native language and another. Code switching functions as part of their “verbal repertoire” just as

much as their first and second languages do.

A useful definition of code switching for sociocultural linguistic analysis should recognize it

as an alternation in the form of communication that signals a context in which the linguistic

contribution can be understood. The ‘context’ so signaled may be very local (such as the end of a turn

at talk), very general (such as positioning vis-à-vis some macro-sociological category), or anywhere

in between. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that this signaling is accomplished by the action

of participants in a particular interaction. That is to say, it is not necessary or desirable to spell out the

meaning of particular code switching behavior a priori. Rather, code switching is accomplished by

parties in interaction, and the meaning of their behavior emerges from the interaction. To recapitulate,

then, code switching is a practice of parties in discourse to signal changes in context by using

alternate grammatical systems or subsystems, or codes. The mental representation of these codes

cannot be directly observed, either by analysts or by parties in interaction. Rather, the analyst must

observe discourse itself, and recover the salience of a linguistic form as code from its effect on

discourse interaction. The approach described here understands code switching as the practice of

individuals in particular discourse settings. Therefore, it cannot specify broad functions of language

alternation, nor define the exact nature of any code prior to interaction. Codes emerge from

interaction, and become relevant when parties to discourse treat them as such.

Code Switching and Its Taxonomy

Code switching has been regarded as a fuzzy-edged construct (Gardner- Chloros, 1995). It

may be briefly defined as ‘the alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or

conversation’ (Grosjean, 1982; Milroy & Muysken, 1995). Although the term ‘utterance or

conversation’ is vague and fuzzy in its reference, we will adopt this rather liberal definition of code

switching in the present study, since the nature of the code switching phenomenon is not our sole

interest and we are also more concerned about its functional use in EFL classroom. And code

switching in foreign language classroom usually refers to the alternate use of the target language and

the native language. There are several terms referring to code switching, including code mixing;

code-changing; and tag-switching, situational and metaphorical code-switching.

As these terms often have various meanings attached to them, it is necessary to first define

each type, as relates to this paper. Code switching is the general term for any kind of language

switching, especially among bilingual Latinos (quiero iral MALL NEXT TUESDAY ‘I want to go to

the mall next Tuesday’) (Fromkin & Rodman, 1998). Code mixing is a brief insertion of a few words

from one language into the other (voy a comprar PIZZA ‘I’m going to buy pizza’). Code changing is

defined as a long clause(s) inserted into one language before or after a segment of the other language

(Yesterday I went to school and learned about algebra and then suddenly un chico empezó a cantar

muy fuerte durante el clase y por fin todos fueron cantando and then the teacher got mad but she

couldn’t get us to stop singing ‘…a boy started singing very loud during the class and finally

everyone started singing…’). Tag-switching occurs when a speaker inserts a tag statement from one

language into another language. Examples of this in English are taking phrases like you know, I

mean, no way, etc, and then inserting them into a Spanish sentence, as seen in this example: es difícil

encontrar trabajo estes dias, YOU KNOW? (‘It’s hard to find work these days, you know’)

(Romaine, 1989). Situational code-switching occurs when, due to a change in setting, conversational

partners, or topic, a speaker chooses to speak in a different language than he was originally speaking

(Wardhaugh, 2006). For example, a group of Japanese-English bilinguals engaged in a conversation

in Japanese may switch to English when a monolingual English speaker approaches and joins the

conversation. This concept also applies to shifting between registers within a language; e.g. a

teenaged boy may speak Standard American English when conversing with a teacher, but switch to a

lower register of slang English when his peers approach. Metaphorical code-switching is used to

emphasize certain aspects of a statement or add meaning to relationships being expressed.

This occurs when bilinguals switch languages to imply that they identify more with a group

in a particular situation (Saville-Troike, 2003). However, in this paper, all switches regardless of the

type will be referred to simply by the general term code switching, unless indicating the location of

the switch (e.g. intra-sentential switching, which will be discussed later).

On the lexical level, code-switching usually occurs when there is no existing translation for a word or

phrase (e.g. the Guatemalan slang term a la gran chucha, literally meaning ‘to the big dog’ has no

direct translation to English, although the general meaning translates to oh my). At the semantic level,

codeswitching can occur within a phrase, sentence, or when an idea can be better explained in the

other language. An example might be cada semana olvida llevar su PAYCHECK TO THE BANK

(‘every week he forgets to bring his paycheck to the bank’). Syntactic codeswitching occurs when the

rules of syntax of one language are applied to the other: tengo muchos HUNGERS (meaning ‘I’m

hungry’) or muchas THANK YOUS (meaning ‘many thank yous’), where the rules of syntax in

Spanish are being applied to English (Cheng & Butler, 1989). Largely out of linguistic and syntactic

consideration, code switching has been divided into two types, i.e., inter-sentential and intra-

sentential (Brice, 2000).

In 1992, Kamwangamalu makes the useful distinction between ‘code switching’ (at the

inter-sentential level) and ‘code mixing’ (at the intra-sentential level). Code switching in its narrow

sense (namely, inter-sentential CS) is used to refer to the language switch across sentence boundaries

while intra-sentential code mixing occurs when the language alternation is produced within a

sentence (Grosjean, 1982). In the present study, code switching is used as a broad cover term and

code mixing is used to refer to language alternation within the sentence boundary. Code mixing and

intra-sentential code switching are used exchangeably.

The Differences between Code Switching and Code Mixing

It could be argued that it is people that come in contact but not languages; but because of the

vital role of language in such contact situations, the term “language in contact” has been preferred.

Languages influence each other when they come in contact. The most noticeable influence is

interference which usually manifests in form of code switching or code mixing. Even though the

difference between code switching and code mixing has been discussed a brief at previous chapter,

still it needs another sub chapter to focus on their difference. There is no distinct difference between

code switching and code mixing. When an individual alternates different codes in his or her

utterances, we then talk of code mixing. So we can say that code mixing happens as the result of code

switching. A speaker may start a sentence in a particular language and then switches over to another

language to finish it, or use different codes for different words, phrases or clauses within the same

sentence.

Many have suggested possible instances for code switching or code mixing. For example, a

speaker may not be able to express himself or herself in one language so switches to the other to

compensate for the deficiency. According to him, this tends to occur when the speaker is upset, tired

or distracted in some manner, or it could be the intention of an individual to express solidarity with a

particular social group either to establish a rapport or to exclude others who do not speak the second

language from a conversation. Another reason which is responsible for the switching behavior is

limited vocabulary in the source language. For example, there are some words in English which do

not have equivalents in the Nigerian languages. Such words include window, pen, pencil, ruler, essay,

cup, test, etc. Since these words are quite popular, most Nigerian speakers tend to mix them in their

utterances in vernacular.

Code switching or code mixing could be seen as a problem of language interference, or the

speaker’s inadequacy in the second language. Some linguists use the terms code mixing and code

switching more or less interchangeably. Especially in formal studies of syntax, morphology, etc.,

both terms are used to refer to utterances that draw from elements of two or more grammatical

systems. These studies are often interested in the alignment of elements from distinct systems, or on

constraints that limit switching. While many linguists have worked to describe the difference between

code switching and borrowing of words or phrases, the term code mixing may be used to encompass

both types of language behavior.

At least, the phenomenon of bilingualism results in the occurrence of code switching and

code mixing (Wardhaugh, 1986: 101). It happens when a speaker requires a particular code, in order

to switch or mix one code to another and even create a new code in process. Then, maintains that

code mixing is the switches occurring within a sentence. The example is the code mixing between

Malay – English: “This morning I hanter my baby tu dekat baby sitter tu lah.” (This morning I took

my baby to the baby sitter.)

On the other hand, code switching is the changes over sentences. Code switching can occur

during the same conversation. For example: “People here get divorced too easily. Like exchanging

faulty goods. In China it’s not the same. Jia gou sui gou, jia sui ji.” (If you have married a dog, you

follow a dog, if you’ve married a chicken, you follow a chicken.) As can be observed from the

example above, first, the speaker said English sentences, and then s/he switched to Mandarin.

In accordance with the example above, it can be explained that code switching can occur

quite frequently in an informal conversation among people who are familiar and have a shared

educational, ethnic, and socio-economic background. It is avoided in a formal speech situation among

people especially to those who have little in common factors in terms of social status, language

loyalty, and formality; because it can trigger social problem due to communication’s lack ness.

Actually, it is not easy to differentiate between code mixing and code switching. However, it

could be found some indicators related to the differences of these two sociolinguistics terms, code

switching and code mixing. First, in code mixing, bilingual speakers seem to apply some words or

phrases from foreign language (pieces of one language smaller than clause), while the other language

(code) functions as the base language. Second, bilingual speakers are said to mix codes when there is

no topic that changes, nor does the situation. A different view proposed to separate the two said that

if it involves changing into a foreign clause or a sentence, it should be defined as a code switching,

but if it involves the use of foreign phrases or group of words, it is identified as a code mixing.

Another view about how to define between code switching and code mixing is related to the

formality of the situation. In code mixing, is said to be found in the less formal situation, while in

code switching is possibly done in a formal one. As the addition, the bilingual’s level of fluency in

the languages (code), usually fluent bilinguals can perform mixing well, while the less skilled ones

may only do switching.

The table below presents summarized differences between code switching and code mixing

according to the several views described here:

Table 2.1 The Differences between Code Switching and Code Mixing

Points of View Code Switching Code Mixing

Grammatical items involved Sentence & clause Phrase, word

Base language Clear Sometimes unclear

Topics May change Maintained

Situations Formal and informal More likely informal

Bilinguals fluencies Partial Total

Interaction and Code Switching

After we understand every thing about code switching, now we move on to next phase. That

is we need to understand the relationship between interaction and code switching. We can see what

code switching is by seeing the application in interaction. Speakers of more than one language (e.g.,

bilinguals) are known for their ability to code-switch or mix their languages during communication.

This phenomenon occurs when bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a

phrase or word from another language. Code switching is a widely observed phenomenon especially

seen in multilingual and multicultural communities. In ELT classrooms, code switching comes into

use either in the teachers’ or the students’ discourse. For example, a person who speaks both Navajo

and English well, is considered being bilingual. Close observation of discourse is also a hallmark of

interactional linguistics, which seeks to understand “the way in which language figures in everyday

interaction and cognition”. These studies tend to be greatly inspired by conversation analysis, as well

as functional linguistics and linguistic anthropology. A number of studies under this broad umbrella

describe both the place of code switching in the language of turn and sequence and the ways that

language alternations, like other contextualization cues, make broader contextual knowledge relevant

to an ongoing discourse. Auer’s 1984 Bilingual Conversation presented a pioneering study of

interaction and code switching. Far from pre-existing and determining language choice, Auer argues

that situation is created by talk in interaction. The form of each speaker’s utterances helps to define

the unfolding situation. Further, this negotiation itself has social meaning. Several subsequent studies

have examined sequential or interactional functions of language alternation. Conversation analysts

have suggested that code switching may serve to enhance turn selection or soften refusals, and is a

possible resource to accomplish repair or mark dispreferred responses. In addition to these

interactional functions, empirical studies have examined how switches in language variety make

particular elements of situation, speaker identities, or background relevant to ongoing talk.

Code Switching Processing Time

Producing a switch within a language has often been thought to incur a longer processing

time. Initial studies of code switching by Macnamara and Kushnir (1971) found that bilinguals were

slower to read code switched passages than monolingual passages. They proposed that switching

would take longer to process because it would take more time to turn a language “off” or “on” as

needed. Because both language systems cannot be active at the same time, the processing of code

switching is slowed down. Other research has found that bilinguals were slower in recognizing words

in one language when they were shown words immediately beforehand in another language. This

implies that switching languages influences not only word recognition, but also the length of time it

takes to process language. However, certain factors such as the recognition of code switched words,

semantic context, phonetics, and “homophonic overlap” may help bilinguals speed up the process of

code switching. In contrast, switches using different types of verbs, such as transitive and intransitive,

or high frequency and low frequency verbs, may cause the process of code switching to slow down

other studies attempted to reduce or eliminate the ambiguity that may come with code switching (by

creating natural code switching circumstances or by “blocking” the experiment’s stimuli). They

found that in so doing, the “cost” of code switching (the extra processing time) was nearly eliminated

as well.

The question arises whether there is a difference in processing cost that occurs between

types of code switches for early vs. late bilinguals. Dussias (2003) found that switches at an auxiliary

+ participle in Spanish-English code switches took significantly longer for participants to read than

switches at the phrasal boundary.

Types of Code Switching

There are some types of code switching. Saville-Troke (1986: 64) classifies code switching

into two dimensions. There are two types of code switching based on the distinction which applies to

the style shifting. The first type is situational code switching. Wardhaugh (1921) states that

situational code switching occurs when the languages used change according to the situation in which

the conversant find themselves; they speak one language in one situation and another in different one.

No topic change is involved. When a change topic requires a change in language used, we have

metaphorical code switching. Saville-Troke (2003) defines metaphorical code switching as a code

switching occurring within a single situation but adding some meaning to such components as the

example of situational code switching is that in some universities a ritual shift occurs at the end of a

successful dissertation defense when professor address the (former) student as Doctor and invite first

names in return. While, the example of metaphorical code switching is when a German girl shifts

from “du” to “sie” with a boy to indicate the relationship has cooled, or when a wife call her husband

(Mr. Smith) to indicate her displeasure.

The second classification is based on the scope of switching or the nature of the juncture

which language takes place (Saville-Troke, 2003). The basic distinction in its scope is usually

between sentences or speech acts, and intrasential switching, or change which occurs within a single

sentence.

Then, Poplack (1980: 581) differentiates three types of code switching based on the juncture

or the scope of switching where language takes place, namely (1) Intra-sentential switching (It occurs

within the clause and sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is one language or another

(2) intersentential switching (it occurs between clause and sentence boundary and it may also include

mixing words boundaries, for example the switching of NV, VP, PP, N, Adj, etc) and (3) Tag

switching (It is the switching of either a tag phrase or word, or both from language – B to Language –

A, for example “you know” , “ I mean “, etc. In this classification, the category involves not only

tags, but also discourse markers such as “well”,“OK”,“Alright”, interjection and affirmative/negative

particles (Example yes/no). There are two other aspects related to code switching, namely code

mixing and code shifting. Code switching is known as switching from one code to another. Code

mixing means mixing of two different codes within a sentence. Code shifting is another variety,

which takes place at phrasal level. Code switching can be both situational and metaphorical.

Situational code switching occurs when the codes are used depending upon the situations. Situational

code switching does not involve any topic change. When a situation of speaker changes, the codes

used also changes. Here, a change of topic requires a change of language. The process of changing

the codes has connections with the social value and status of speakers. Since, they are deciding the

codes to be selected. Code mixing occurs when the speakers use two or more languages together and

mix them in a single utterance or in their communicative act. Code switching and other related

language use phenomenon occurs in all linguistic situations, monolingual or bilingual situations.

Code switching in a monolingual situation indicates the diglossic switching and dialectal switching.

Diglossic code switching means mixing or shifting of codes from standard variety to a low

variety or vice versa depending upon the demands of some of social and psychological situations. For

example, a person speaking to an educated person or to an honored person in the society, he uses a

standard variety. At the same time, when he speaks to the person who is socially lower in status' he

uses a low variety. But, when he speaks with his family friends or other related persons, he mixes

both the high and low varieties of the languages. In a casual conversational situation, there will be a

mixture of both the codes. Sometimes, a person who knows more then one dialects uses different

codes. A person who belongs to one particular dialect may use a standard code in formal situation or

with his friends. At the same time, he may change from one code to another assuming that the hearer

also knows the change in the code.

In a bilingual situation also code switching occurs. A person who knows two languages may

know the cultural background of both the languages, and sometimes becomes proficient in both the

languages and thereby he adopts code switching during language use. For example, a Tamilian who

has wider exposure to English then his mother tongue will be often switching to English from Tamil

due to his proficiency or due to certain psychological reasons or motives. Code switching is also

possible in a multilingual situation; when a speaker uses more then two languages, he often switches

over from one to another and ends up in mixing of all the codes. This is common in multilingual

countries like India. As Poplack ideas, this research has three kinds of code switching available. They

are: (1) Intra-sentential (2) Inter-sentential (3) Tag code switching.

1 Intra – sentential

Intra sentential switching takes place within a sentence or clause or word boundaries with no

apparent change in topic, interlocker, setting, setting etc. In intra-sentential code switching, nouns are

considered the largest proportion of switching. It is because they are relatively free of syntactic

restriction.

Example:

1. buku (Indonesian) for book in English.

2. mangan (Batak Toba) for makan in Indonesian.

3. No, kalian here.

2 Inter – sentential

This kind of code switching occurs between clause or sentence boundary, where each clause

or sentence is in one language or other, as when an adult Spanish-English bilingual says: “Tenia

zapatos blancos, un poco, they were offwhite, you know.” Another example can be seen as follows :

1. “Sometimes I start a sentence in English, ye termino in Espanol.”

(Sometimes I start a sentence in English, and finish it in Spanish.)

2. “Saya nggak tahu kenapa dia begitu stupid.

(I don’t know why she is so stupid)

3 Tag Switching

This kind of switching involves the insertion of a tag in one language into an utterance

which is otherwise entirely in the other language. This tag switching are inserted at a number of

points in an utterance. The following is the example of Indonesian – English tag code switching :

1. “You know ….. Itu tidak begitu menarik.”

(You know…. That’s not quite interesting.)

2. “You know….. itu perbuatan bodoh, boy.”

(You know…..that’s a stupid thing, boy.)

3. “Pendapat saya, it’s okay aja.”

(My opinion, it’s okay.)

4. “I should go there, kan?”

(I should go there, shouldn’t I?)

Reasons for Code Switching

In EFL classroom, one of the teacher’s essential concerns is to ensure that students with

limited and varied English proficiency understand the teaching points while achieving considerable

efficiency. Teacher code switching has been identified in both academic and non-academic content.

The current classification of reasons, as I have stated earlier, draws upon these studies. In analyzing

code switching in functional terms, however, a major problem is that many switches may be either

multi-functional, or open to different functional interpretations. What this study can offer is only a

tentative analysis of the reasons for teacher code switching between English and Indonesia in EFL

classroom. Summarizing the results of the tentative analysis, we can say that teacher code switching

in EFL classroom may arise out of one or more of the following reasons:

1. Owing to teacher’s linguistic competence and insecurity

Rather than true bilinguals who can choose freely between different codes or languages,

they are, more accurately, monolingual individuals who have skills and knowledge in the target

language. It is possible that they are sometimes unable to recall the required target language word at

the moment of uttering. Some intra-sentential code switching instances belong to this category.

2. For ease of expression

We also find that, in other intra-sentential code switching examples, the teacher may switch

to English for ease of expression when an English word or expression finds its equivalent in several

language terms or when its equivalent is not easy to retrieve.

3. For translation of new and unfamiliar words and expressions

Teachers’ concern for unfamiliar vocabulary or expression often prompts them to code

switch. When the teacher is not sure whether the students know the meaning of the target language

word or expression in question, it is common for him/her to offer his/her own native language

translation for clarification.

4. Repetitive functions

One of the very old concerns of teachers’ is how to get the meaning conveyed and

understood by students. Repetition is one of the important techniques for clarification or emphasis in

the teaching practice. It can be done in either language or both. In many cases, the teacher conveys

the same message in both languages for emphasis or clarity. By code switching, the teacher repeats

what has been said, usually in the form of translation or approximate translation.

5. Socializing functions

Teachers may switch to his/her native language for interpersonal, rapport building purpose.

This is traditionally termed as ‘we code’, a term coming from Gumperz (1982). In the course of

instruction, teachers sometimes code switch from English to their native language in order to develop

or maintain solidarity or friendship between teacher and students.

Flyman-Mattsson & Burenhult (1999) also mentions the affective functions for code

switching, for example, the spontaneous expression of emotions and emotional understanding in

interacting with students. It is noted that either a feeling of pleasure at a good student’s performance

or a feeling of displeasure at a poor performance from the class seem to bring on the switch from the

target language to the native language. In this study, however, no such functional use of code

switching has been identified. And we notice that these teachers tend to use English, the target

language, to express their feeling of pleasure at a good student’s performance. In summary,

examination of the data revealed that only a few instances of code switching are due to lack of

appropriate lexicon in the foreign language. In most cases, code switching by teachers serves some

kind of pedagogical purposes. There are, however, also some instances where no clear motivation can

be identified for the switching.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual framework is used to make conceptual distinctoins and organize ideas. Strong

conceptual frameworks capture something real and do this in a way that is easy to remember and

apply. In this research the writer focus on code switching.

Code switching has often been characterized by seemingly random changes from one

language to another. There are two other aspects related to code switching, namely code mixing and

code shifting. Code switching is known as switching from one code to another. Code mixing means

mixing of two different codes within a sentence. Code shifting is another variety, which takes place at

phrasal level. Code switching can be both situational and metaphorical. Situational code switching

occurs when the codes are used depending upon the situations. Situational code switching does not

involve any topic change. When a situation of speaker changes, the codes used also changes. The

process of changing the codes has connections with the social value and status of speakers.

Then, Poplack (1980: 581) differentiates three types of code switching based on the juncture

or the scope of switching where language takes place, namely (1) Intra-sentential switching (It occurs

within the clause and sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is one language or another

(2) intersentential switching (it occurs between clause and sentence boundary and it may also include

mixing words boundaries, for example the switching of NV, VP, PP, N, Adj, etc) and (3) Tag

switching (It is the switching of either a tag phrase or word, or both from language – B to Language –

A, for example “you know” , “ I mean “, etc. In this classification, the category involves not only

tags, but also discourse markers such as “well”,“OK”,“Alright”, interjection and affirmative/negative

particles (Example yes/no).

The object of this research is an English teacher and students in SMK Swasta Teladan Medan.

The writer analyze the code switching based on the types of code switching explained before. The

code switching is analysed in every sentences. And the last is making conclusion about the analysis

research.

To make clear, here is the figure of conceptual framework :

Sociolinguistics

Bilingualism

Types of Code

Switching

(Poplack)

Intra-sentential Inter-sentential Tag Switching

Reasons for code

switching

Institutional factor

For ease of

expression

Socializing functions

Repetitive

functions

For Translation of

new and unfamiliar

words

Code

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of Code Switching of English Teaching in SMK Swasta Teladan

Medan

2. Research Design

The research applies a qualitative research design. Design is used in research refers to the

researcher plan of how to proceed. Design decisions are made throughout the study – at the end as well

as the beginning. To specify the design in this research, observational case study is applied. The data

may have been collected in a variety of ways, such as observations, interviews, and tape recordings.

Data and Data Source

The data in this study is utterances of Mr. Nelson Marpaung (English teacher), grade XII and

XI at SMK Swasta Teladan Medan. This school is a National Standard School. It is a National Standard

School at SMK Swasta Teladan Medan. It has 7 classes of grade XII and 7 classes of grade XI. Every

class has different consists of students in average.

The data source of this study is English teacher and grade 3.5, grade 3.6, grade 2TKJ1. Grade

3.5 class has 48 students, grade 3.6 class has 43 students, and grade 2TKJ1 class has 48 students. The

total of students are 139 students. There was a teacher who will be the focus, which is an English

teacher. This class is use two languages (English and Indonesian) in teaching-learning process.

Data Collection

As it was previously mentioned that the research design was observational case study, so the

data collection was conducted through one instrument, it is interview by give questionnaire (see

appendix B and D).

The above data were collected through the following steps.

a. Recording the English teacher utterances;

b. Transcribing, where interviewers are initiating there search themselves, they will clearly select their

own respondents; where interviewers are engaged by another agent, then they will probably be given

a list of people to contact (Cohen et.al, 2007);

c. Interviewing, allow people to convey to others a situation from their own perspective and in their own

words. (Kvale S, 2007). (see appendix B and D);

d. Analyzing, once data from the interview have been collected, the next stage involves analysing them,

often by some form of coding or scoring (Cohen et.al, 2007). (see appendix B and D);

e. Make conclude.

The Procedures of Data Analysis

The data were collected through recorded of the teaching-learning process of English class at SMK

Swasta Teladan Medan as a National Standard School. All the data collection was analyzed through the

following steps.

1). For problem 1 :

1. Numbering the data;

2. Analyzing the data based on Poplack theory;

3. Make a finding.

2). For problem 2 and 3 :

1. Interviewing teacher and students;

2. Transcribing the result of interview;

3. Analyzing the data;

4. Make conclude.

Validity

Data were obtained for 10 days, from 16-27 February 2015 during teaching-learning process.

The writer recorded class 3.5 on 16 February 2015, class 3.6 on 17 February 2015 and class 2TKJ1 on

18 February 2015. The writer also interviewed English a teacher and a student The data was recorded by

using Advan tablet and Samsung Ace 3 for interviewed English teacher and students. The data are

recording conversation and transcription or in written form.

3. Data Analysis

The data in this study were focused on the teaching-learning process of a teacher’s code

switching in a particular class of English in an National school, SMK Swasta Teladan Medan. The data

were obtained for 10 days, from 17-27 February 2015 during teaching-learning process. The data were

consisted of record and transcript into the written form then being elaborated based on the problems of

this study. The whole data are analyzed and interpreted based on the theories written in chapter II. The

data of this research are utterance of three meeting. In three meeting, the writer enclosed in appendix.

There are, 33 the utterances of the English teacher.

The data are analysis based on Poplack (1980: 581) differentiates three types of code switching

based on the juncture or the scope of switching where language takes place, namely (1) Intra-sentential

switching, (2) Inter-sentential switching and (3) Tag switching.

The Dominant Types of Teacher’s Code Switching

As being explained in previous chapter, code switching is classified into three types based

on two views. First, based on the distinction which applies to the style shifting, they are situational

code switching and metaphorical code switching. Second, based on the scope of switching or the

nature of the juncture which language takes place, they are Intra-sentential switching, Inter-sentential

switching and Tag switching. However, in this study, the second view of code switching type was used.

So, there were three types of code switching in this study.

Data 1

1. Kami pun we are as a teacher has Standard Operating Procedure, director, secretary (2).

2. Apa-apa aja Standard Operating Procedure receptionist itu (5).

3. Siapa saja yang mau jadi resepsionis harus memenuhi Standard Operating Procedure ini ya kan (6).

4. Jadi kita harus membuat Standard Operating Procedure (9).

5. Jadi harus bekerja dengan enjoy kepada masyarakat dan harus bekerja bersama tim (13).

6. Harus punya good communication skills (16).

7. Laki-laki itu good looking harusnya ya kan? (17)

8. Harus tau check in atau check out ya kan? (18)

9. Berhubungan dengan porters (22).

10. Housekeeping apa? (23)

11. Jadi harus tau sebagai resepsionis for number semua restoran, for number guest (24).

12. Jadi itulah communication skill (25).

13. Kan harus balance, ada keseimbangan kan (28).

14. Jangan tanggung jawab besar, salary nya kecil (29).

15. Inilah contoh dari Standard Operating Procedure of receptionist (31).

16. Harus mempunyai kepribadian yang baik, job active, deducative (34).

17. Jadi harus berpenampilan rapi, good looking (36).

18. Melayani some guest or one guest (38).

19. Audit di pagi hari dan menyeimbangkan biaya-biaya (39).

20. Orang yang mengangkat tas itulah namanya porters (41).

21. Tulis in the book and you practice in front of the class (43).

22. Tolong buat 1 kata kerja dari paragraph report text (46).

23. Ok paham? (47)

Based on the utterances above, namely Intra-sentential switching which refer to teach

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and Report Text.

Data 2

1. Experience in Hotel reception role in 4 star or similar standard Hotel Essential. Berpengalaman di

hotel bintang 4 atau standar hotel essensial yang sama artinya standar hotel berbintang 4 (11).

2. Who knows the meaning? Siapa yang tau artinya? (12)

3. Serve the customer, melayani pelanggan ya kan? (14)

4. Serve the guest. Melayani tamu (15).

5. Morning audit and balancing of charges. Audit setiap pagi dan biaya yang seimbang ok (19).

6. Selling and room allocation for change guests. Menjual dan mengalokasikan ruangan untuk tamu

yang silih berganti (20).

7. Benefit and perks. Keuntungan dan biaya, gaji (26).

8. Very attractive salary €25,00-27,00 according to experience. Gaji sekitar €25,00-27,00

berdasarkan pengalaman (27).

9. Gateway city, center foc. Dia tinggal di pusat kota (30).

10. What is that? Apa artinya itu? (33)

11. Must have excellent communication skills. Memiliki komunikasi yang baik (35).

12. Evening reservations. Pesanan malam hari (40).

Based on the utterances above, namely Inter-sentential switching which refer to which

refer to teach Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Data 3

1. For example : in your department has a Standard Operating Procedure in jurusan kan (1).

2. Ok this is the example of Standard Operating Procedure of Receptionist ya (3).

3. I say that, there are many kinds of Standard Operating Procedure in your department ya (4).

4. Ok, you must have Standard Operating Procedure if you want to be a receptionist ya (7).

5. So, if you want to be a mechanic ya (8).

6. What are the requirements of Standard Operating Procedure of mechanic ya? (10)

7. For example ya (21) : VIP room, standard room, executive room, economy room.

8. For example Standard Operating Procedure headmaster (kepala sekolah) ya (32).

9. Guest tau guest? (37)

10. Cleaning service ya! (42)

11. Factual information ya (44)

12. Fact ya (45).

Based on the utterances above, namely Tag switching which refer to teach Standard

Operating Procedure (SOP) and Report Text.

In teaching-learning process, English was dominantly used by the teacher in explaining the

material and expressing her feeling to the students. The teacher often switched into English by inserting

Indonesian. The three types, namely intra-sentential code switching, inter-sentential code switching and

tag-switching, were occurred in the class. The main language which is used is English in the classroom.

There were total of 47 teacher code switches during teaching-learning of English. Since the main

language of communication was English, there were 23 teacher code switches, which was the majority

of the switches, or 18.6 percent took place from Indonesian to English. Further detailed observation also

showed that intra-sentential code switching more easily occurred within the sentence boundary. For

example :

“Ok g. Lasing with hotel porters. Berhubungan dengan porters.

Tau porters? Porters itu pembawa tas.

h. Lasing with housekeeping department.

Housekeeping apa?

Students : pelayan.

i, Lasing with restaurant. Example dinner reservations guest relation.

Berhubungan dengan pemesanan makan restoran ya kan? Dinner. Jadi harus tau sebagai resepsionis

for number semua restoran, for number guest. Jadi itulah communication skill.”

While Intra-sentential dominant than Inter-sentential and tag-switching. Intra-sentential code

switching occurred dominantly than all which occurred 23 switches from 47 or about 49 percent. Inter-

sentential code switching same with Tag switching which occurred 12 switches or 25,5 percent. It can be

seen in the table 4.2.

Table 4.1 The Frequency of Types of Code Switching

Types of Code Switching Number %

Intra-sentential 23 49 %

Inter-sentential 12 25,5 %

Tag-switching 12 25,5 %

TOTAL 47 100 %

The Reason Why the Teacher Used Code Switching in Classroom

As the elaboration in the previous chapter, there are four main reasons why the teacher used

code switching in the classroom. They are :

1. for ease of expression;

2. for translate of unfamiliar words and expressions;

3. for repetitive functions; and

4. for socializing functions.

Those four reasons were questioned through the interview with the teacher. She answered besides those

four reasons; the main reason why he used code switching the classroom was because of the institutional

factor. Then come along the rest four reasons above.

1 Institutional Factor

Institutional factor plays an important role why someone especially teacher used code

switching. SMK Swasta Teladan Medan chosen as a project from National Education as a National

school. Related to that, it is required to the teachers in that school have to know English as a foreign

English as a foreign language in teaching context.

The rules that applied by the institution in which all school’s members, especially teachers,

have to use both languages, English and Indonesia, as means of their communication in the teaching-

learning process. It made them tend to code switch between two languages.

2 For Ease of Expression

When bilinguals are tired or angry, code switching takes place with a new dimension. In this

case, this mode factor was not found as the teacher seemed to have at the right state of mind. The

situational factor which involved in her case was when she wanted to emphasize a point of the subject,

for example :

“We study about SOP. Ok SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Ok what is SOP in Indonesia

meaning of……. Jadi SOP itu Operasi Standar atau Operasional Standar. For example : in your

department has a Standard Operating Procedure in jurusan kan. Kami pun we are as a teacher has

Standard Operating Procedure, director, secretary.”

3 For Translation of New and Unfamiliar Words and Expresions

At glance, this reason is seemed like the other two reasons above. But, they are different in their

way. At this situation, the teacher found difficulties in transferring her knowledge because she could see

her students’ difficulties in in knowing her explanation. Dealing with that, the teacher code switched

from English-Indonesia. It aims to grab the understanding from the students. For example:

“g. Lasing with hotel porters. Berhubungan dengan porters.

Tau porters? Porters itu pembawa tas.”

4 Repetitive functions

One of the very old concerns of teachers’ is how to get the meaning conveyed and understood

by students. Repetition is one of the important techniques for clarification or emphasis in the teaching

practice. It can be done in Indonesia or English. In many opportunities, teacher repeated some utterances

or phrases for emphasizing the message to students and for clarity. For example:

“Teacher : Standar Operating Procedure

Students : Standar Operating Procedure (students repeat the teacher)

Teacher : There are many kinds about Standard Operating Procedure.

For example Standard Operating Procedure headmaster (kepala sekolah) ya.

There are Standard Operating Procedure secretary, director, receptionist.”

The example above was taken when the teacher asked the students to repeat what she has said

in order to see if he students understood or not.

5 Socilazing functions

Teachers may switch his/her native language for interpersonal, rapport building purpose. In the

course of instruction, teachers sometimes code switch from English to their native language in order to

develop or maintain and solidarity or friendship between teacher and students. For example :

“I say that, there are many kinds of Standard Operating Procedure in your department ya. Ya kan Rusdi?

Secretary, teacher.

Rusdi : Yes Sir.”

Table 4.2 Matrix of Code Switching in a Teaching of English

No Types of Code

Switching

Number of

occurrence Percentage Reasons

1 Intra-sentential

Code switching 23 49

1. Institutional factor.

2. For ease of expression

3. For translation of new and

familiar words and expression

4. Repetitive functions

5. Socializing functions

2 Inter-sentential

Code switching 12 25,5

3 Tag Switching 12 25,5

TOTAL 47 100

The Benefits of Teacher’s Code Switching for Students

Overall, learns’ perceptions of the teacher’s code switching were positive. When interviewed if

they appreciated their English teacher’s use of code switching, many of the students indicated that their

teacher’s code switching has made them enjoy their English class. Generally, the students perceived that

code switching has helped to ensure that they achieve their intended success due to a high percentage of

students who were undecided in their choice. The students were most united when indicating that code

switching has helped them understand difficult concepts faced in their learning.

Of a total 139 students, 72 percent of the students indicated that code switching has helped them

understand new words, has assisted them in understanding any difficult concepts contained in the lesson,

teacher’s code switching has helped them understand the topic being taught. Students perceived that

their learning success was also related to the teacher’s code switching.

Research Findings

After analyzing the data, it was found that :

1. The dominant type of code switching used by the teacher was Intra-sentential switching.

2. There were five reasons why the teacher used code switching; they were institutional factor, for

ease of expression, for translation of new and unfamiliar words and expression, repetitive

functions, and socializing functions.

3. It was found there were many benefits that students took and achieved when their teacher code

switched. They perceived that code switching has helped them understand difficult concepts, new

words, and even the topic being taught. They perceived too that it helped them in learning more

English and also they were able to carry out any task assigned by the teacher when code switched.

The main benefit that they perceived was their success in the learning.

Discussion

The above description and analysis of data has shown that in EFL teacher speech, code

switching exhibits teacher’s competence in English and Indonesia. Linguistically, intra-sentential is

more evident than inter-sentential and tag switching. Some loose correspondence between kinds of code

switching and some categories of functions can be implicated. For instance, for translation of unfamiliar

words and expressions is more likely to involve intra-sentential code switching while repetitive functions

more likely to involve inter-sentential code switching. In most cases, code switching, be it inter-

sentential or intra-sentential, serves one or another functions.

From the analysis of reasons for teacher code switching, we may conclude that code switching.

In most cases, code switching, be it inter-sentential or intra-sentential, serves one or another functions.

From the analysis of reasons for teacher code switching, we may conclude that code switching

represents one of the strategies that EFL teachers often use to accommodate the students’ level of foreign

language proficiency. Teachers often code switch to translate or elaborate the important message during

the process of explaining new vocabulary or grammar points, instead of continuing in the foreign

language. It reduces the overall comprehension burden and makes it easier for students to concentrate on

the core message conveyed. Teacher’s maintaining of solidarity and expression of emotional

understandings by switching to Indonesia also contributes to the smooth flow of classroom interaction

and communication.

Jacobson (1990) proposes that the teacher may code switching at some key points such as when

concepts are important, when the students are getting distracted, or when a student should be praised or

reprimanded. Faltis (1989) goes further on to clarify the use of codes witching in Jacobson’s teaching

model. As cited from Brice (2000), he states that code switching in the classroom should follow two

guidelines : (a) only inter-sentential language switching, i.e., code switching and not code mixing, be

allowed in the classroom (a point also suggested by Jacobson 1983) and (b) all language switching

should be school professional initiated, especially teacher initiated (this latter point may be difficult to

impose).

Here, considering the present situation of EFL teaching in Indonesia, especially trends of

bilingual teaching, we would advocate a more conscious and cautious use of code switching in bilingual

classroom. While inter-sentential code switching is considered as an educationally justifiable strategy

(Jacobson, 1983), the use of intra-sentential code switching, however, needs to be saved only for specific

teaching purposes. Excessive use of intra-sentential code switching can make teacher’s language appear

broken and damage student confidence in teacher’s proficiency. The relative low percentage of intra-

sentential code switching in the data may indicate that the teachers are aware of the point. We also need

to bear in mind that, in foreign language classroom, the target language input by the teacher is

considered as an important factor in language input and present the best possible model of the language

(Polio & Duff, 1994) while fulfilling the teaching requirement. From the explanation it is stated that

intra-sentential and inter-sentential code switching happened because of the teacher’s awareness; while

tag switching, which happened many times than the two kinds of switching, happened because of the

unconsciousness of the teacher. It is her habitual of saying Indonesian tag even though she speaks

English.

In many cases, it is necessary for teacher to switch code to translate newly introduced language

points, especially for learn with a limited command of the target language.

Furthermore, some habitual practice of translating of the content of the instruction from FL

(Foreign Language) to NL (National Language), whether it is particularly necessary or not would make

the classroom language monotonous and redundant. This may not be an advisable practice.

The last is that code switching is to be used mainly as a transition language teaching technique

to eventually all English instruction. With the improvement of student’s level of proficiency,

communication in a classroom should take place in the target language as much as possible.

4. Conclusions

The conclusions are drawn from the elaboration and discovery of the research problems as

following :

1. Intra-sentential code switching occurred dominantly than all which occurred 23 switches

from 47 or about 49 percent. Inter-sentential code switching same with Tag switching which

occurred 12 switches or 25,5 percent. So, the dominant type of teacher’s code switching is

Intra-sentential code switching.

2. There are five reasons why the teacher uses code switching in her classroom, they are; for

ease of expression; for translation of unfamiliar words and expressions; for repetitive

functions; and for socializing functions.

3. There are benefits for students when the teacher uses code switching in the classroom. From

139 students, 72 percent of the students indicated that code switching has helped them

understand new words and even the topic being taugh

References

Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Beardsmore, H.B. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Tieto, Ltd.

Bell , R.T. 1976. Sociolinguistics-Goals Approaches and Problems. B.T Batstord Ltd: London .

Brice, A. 2000. Code Switching and Code Mixing in the ESL Classroom: A Study of Pragmatic and

Syntactic Features. Advances in Speech Language

Bright, W. 1986. Social Dialect and Semantic Structure in South Asia . Structure and Change in Indian

Society. Singer, M., Cohn. B (Eds) New York . WGFAR.

Cohen, L, Manion, L and Morrison, K. 2007. Research Methods in Education. New York : Routledge.

Dussias, P.E. 2003. Spanish-English Code Mixing at the Auxiliary Phrase Evidence from Eye-Movement

Data. Revista Internacional de Linguistica Iberoamericana.

Faltis, C.J. 1989. Code-Switching and Bilingual Schooling: An Examination of Jacobson's New

Concurrent Approach. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. v.10

no.2 p117-27.

Flyman-Mattsson, A., & Burenhult, N. 1999. Code-switching in second language teaching of French.

Working Papers.

Gardner-Chloros, P. 1995. Code Switching in Community, Regional and National Repertoires. In

Milroy, L & Muysken, P. (ed.).

Gleason, J.B. and Ratner. N. B. 1998. Psycholinguistics, Second Edition, Harcourt Brace Collage

Publisher.

Gonzales-Velásquez, M. D. 1995. Sometimes Spanish, Sometimes English. In K. Hall (Ed.) Gender

articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self (pp. 421-446). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Greggio, S., & Gil, G. 2007. Teacher’s and Learners’ Use of Code Switching in the English as a Foreign

Language Classroom: A Qualitative Study. Linguagem & Ensino, 10(2).

Gumperz, J. J.. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huerta-Macias, A., & Quintero, E. 1992. Code-switching, bilingualism, and biliteracy: A case study.

Bilingual Research Journal, 16.

Holmes, J. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Longman.

Hornby, A.S. 2002. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobson, R. 1983. Inter Sentential Code Switching: An Educationally Justifiable Strategy. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED231 221.

Jacobson, R. (ed.). 1990. Code Switching as a Worldwide Phenomenon. New York: Peter Lang.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. 1992. Mixers and Mixing English across Cultures. World Englishes.

Lipski, J. M. 1985. Linguistic Aspects of Spanish-English Language Switching. Tempe, Arizona:

Arizona State University Center for Latin American Studies.

Macnamara, J. & Kushnir, S. 1971. Linguistic Independence of Bilinguals: The Input Switch. Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior.

Martin, P. W. 1996. Code-Switching in the Primary Classroom: One Response to the Planned and the

Unplanned Language Environment in Brunei. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 17.

Milroy, L & Muysken, P. (ed.) 1995. One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross- Disciplinary Perspectives

on Code Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. 2006. Natural code switching knocks on the laboratory door. Bilingualism: Language

and Cognition. 9.

Myusken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nilep, C. 2006. “Code Switching” in Sociocultural Linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics. June

2006. Vol.19. Boulder: University of Colorado.

Polio, C., & Duff, P. 1994. Teachers’ Language Use in University Foreign Language Classrooms: A

Qualitative Analysis of English and Target Language Alternation. Modern Language

Journal, 78, 313-326.

Poplack, S. 1980. “Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y Termino en Espanol: Toward a

Typology of Code-switching.” Linguistics 18(233-234): 581-618.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J and Platt, H. 1992. Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.

Essex: Longman Group UK Ltd.

Saville-Troike, M. 2003. The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Oxford, England:

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Romaine, S. 1994. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, London: Oxford University

Press.

Shin, S. 2010. The Functions of Code Switching in a Korean Sunday School. Indiana University,

Bloomington. Heritage Language Journal. Vol. 7. Winter, 2010.

Simamora, J. N. 2008. Code Switching in Song Lyrics. Unpublished M. Hum. Thesis. English Applied

Study Program, Postgraduate School. Medan. State University of Medan.

Wardhaugh, R. 2006. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Wardhaugh, R. 1921. Language an Introduction to Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace

Javanovich, Inc.

Yang, M. 2004. A Study of Code-Switching in Chinese EFL Classrooms: A Pragmatic Approach. Sino-

US English Teaching, 1(10).