Malay-English Code-mixing Alternation Insertion at Morphological

MALAY-ENGLISH CODE-MIXING ALTERNATION INSERTION AT MORPHOLOGICAL LEVEL IN FACEBOOK AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Azu Farhana Anuar, Bahiyah Abdul Hamid School of Language Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM, Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan Abstract This study examined the occurrences of code-mixing insertion of English morphemes into Malay lexical items in Facebook postings by university students from a few universities in Malaysia. A collection of 144 postings dated between January 2012 and January 2013 were analyzed to identify: 1) the patterns of code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level utilized by the University students on Facebook; 2) reasons for utilizing Malay-English code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level on Facebook among university students; and 3) the functions of the code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level patterns utilized. The findings suggest that the two areas where Malay and English grammar display lack of congruence are pluralization of nouns (-s) and continuous tense (-ing). There are certain patterns invented which the insertion of English suffixes into Malay lexical items were identified. In addition, the most dominant reasons and functions for this code-mixing insertion among the students are to amplify the content of this study. Using the responses gained from interview sessions, data then was interpreted according to Alam’s (2006) 9 reasons of students’ code mixed and 8 functions of codemixing among students by Kanthimathi (2005). The reasons and functions found were according to the context of the data collection; in socialnetworking, Facebook and among certain universities students. Out of Alam’s 9 reasons, 5 reasons were identified to be the main factors of this code-mixing of insertion occurrence which are; spontaneous, to draw the attention of others, to show off, to take the advantage of knowing a separate language and lack of translation equivalent. However, one new reason was identified from a respondent that is to follow the current language trend While out of Kanthimathi’s 8 functions, 4 functions were identified which are; attitudinal, directive, socializing and referential functions. Conclusions and suggestions for further research are provided. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction Since The Education Act 1961 which granted for the use of the Malay language, Bahasa Malaysia, to substitute English as the main medium of instruction, Malaysians have been utilizing both languages in their daily life. English became a second language with the implementation of Bahasa Malaysia to substitute English as the official language and the medium of instruction in all government schools in Malaysia. According to Wee (2009), this change in policy resulted in the deterioration in the standard of English among Malaysians in the 1970s onwards. In the 1990s, English recovered its significance as Malaysia aims 2020 as the year to achieve a fully developed status, in which English is the language of science, trade, communication and technology. Bahiyah (2003: 3-4), stated that English is legitimately renowned as the second language, and observed as a lingua franca, but as well as a code for Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

72

international and regional acquaintances in the spheres of science and technology, international and regional finance, trade, diplomatic and economic affairs. Seeing that the bilingual system of education is in place, with some subjects studied through the medium of Malay and others through the English-medium, Malaysian university students are keen to apply both languages in their interaction. University students in the early twenty-first century, as well, are using home computers and notebooks for communication at unprecedented rates in ever-expanding virtual communities (Tagliamonte, 2008). Taking into consideration the largest virtual community – Facebook, has become one of the main communication media university students utilize to keep in contact with friends and acquaintances. This makes it an appealing medium of spoken-written language to identify trends of code-mixing among university students in informal social domains for this type of trend is much observed among the young generation in Malaysia of late. This study aims to examine the patterns of code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level that exist in socialnetworking, namely Facebook, among university students, hoping to identify the reasons Malay lexical items have been code-mixed with English morphemes and the functions of their occurrence. This is in contrast to previous research, which has mostly studied language alternation in face-to-face informal conversations (Chan, 2004; Muysken, 2000; Myer-Scotton, 1992; Wei, 1998) with few studies in the context of computer mediated communication (Danet & Herring, 2003; Durham, 2003; Goldbarg, 2009; Ho, 2006; Huang, 2004). Code Alternation Language alternation describes the alternating use of two languages, recognizable grammatical systems (Nilep, 2010). Language alternation as well concerns linguistic form. Most alternations are codeswitching but code switching concerns on the contextualization of communication (Gumperz, 1992). According to Nilep (2010), change in linguistic form (language alternation) signals a change in context (contextualization) the practice may be described as code switching. However, this alternation concerns on linguistic patterns of code alternation (grammatical forms), where the relationship between the contributing languages is not necessarily asymmetric, and that both languages can play an equal part in contributing to the morphosyntax of code-mixed texts (Bentahila and Davies, 1998). The distinction between code-switching and code-mixing is one of the most perplexing debates in the study of language alternation (Cárdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009; Myers-Scotton, 1993). Clyne (1991 as cited in Cárdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009) claims that code-switching and code-mixing refer to the same phenomena in “which the speaker stops using language ‘A’ and employs language ‘B’” (p.161). Wei (1998) clarifies that if language alternation occurs at or above clause level, it is considered codeswitching, but if it occurs below clause level then it is considered code-mixing. Thus, in addition, according to Bahiyah (2003: 35), code-alternation is employed as a resource for the construction of interactional meaning between two codes. Code-Mixing (Insertion) Code-mixing occurs when lexical items and grammatical features of two or more languages exist in the same sentence (Muysken, 2000). According to Li (1998; 2000), code-mixing refers to any admixture of linguistic elements of two or more language systems in the same utterance at various levels: phonological, lexical, grammatical and orthographical. It has already been found that the phenomenon of code-mixing not only exists in conversations among language users in Malaysia but also occurs in sentences used in on-line social networks such Facebook. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

73

According to Ho (2007), code-mixing is the mix of one language with another within the same utterance or in the same oral or written text. It is a common phenomenon in societies in which two or more languages are used. According to Bokamba (1989), code-mixing is the embedding of various linguistic units such as affixes (bound morphemes), words (unbound morphemes), phrases and clauses from a cooperative activity where the participants, in order to infer what is intended, must reconcile what they hear with what they understand. In addition to code-mixing patterns, according to Musyken (2009), insertion happens when lexical items from one language are incorporated into another. He added insertion also occurs when the string of words is preceded and followed by elements from the other language, which is structurally related. He further added that the idea of insertion is elucidated as insertion of material such as grammar morphemes, lexical items or entire constituents from one language into a structure from other language and it happens in well defined chunks of language B into a sentence that otherwise belongs to language A. However, in this study, the direction of this code-mixing of insertion happens in morphological level where Malay lexical items are inserted by English grammatical morphemes. In this study, the narrow focus will be on the code-mixing alternation of insertion; English grammatical morphemes into Malay lexical items where patterns of language choice are investigated through the medium of Facebook (e.g. lepaking, makaning, bajus, kakaks). Language choice of this study will be mainly English and the code-mixing lexical items are Malay, whilst morphemes insertion is English.

Statement of the Problem According to Crystal (2001; as cited in Cárdenas-Claros and Isharyanti, 2009), this type of communication through the internet has prompted new concepts of language contact. This has attracted many researchers to study language contact via computer-mediated communication (CMC) especially in bilingual communities (e.g. Paolillo, 1999, 2001; Su, 2003; Hinrichs, 2006 as cited in Huang, 2009). She further adds that the language contact phenomena includes code-switching and code-mixing. Code-mixing is a common phenomenon in Malaysia (McLellan, 2009) in present days, especially among university students. Thus, problems might occur in accordance to these circumstances. Since many universities in Malaysia use English as the medium of instruction while the students use Malay as their mother tongue in daily conversation of informal domains, the occurrence of code-mixing is rapidly spreading. Hence, this study investigates the occurrence of code-mixing insertion of English morphemes into Malay lexical items. As the patterns are being concerned, the population of people utilizing them is being alarmed as well. The language alternated might lead the students to using Manglish, instead of Malaysian English. According to Kim (2008), Manglish is Malaysian Bazaar English where Malaysians apply it daily in the form of ‘Bahasa Rojak’, whilst Malaysian English is Standard Malaysian English, where the domain applied always is academic wise. Moreover, according to Guardian (2010), the cyber speak could hamper one’s spelling ability and grammatical competency as communication that takes place in socialnetworkings does not conform to the traditional ways of spelling, as people do not seem to bother if they have spelled incorrectly or committed grammatical errors. There are only few studies on code-mixing (e.g. Muthusamy, 2009; Bahiyah, 2003; Kim, 2006) of insertion among university students (Musyken, 2009; Alam, 2006), especially the insertion of English Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

74

morphemes into Malay words. Hence, the aspects of morphological level of this code-mixing insertion are still lacking in Malaysian context, especially in spoken-written form among students. Thus, what are the patterns utilized by the students to this morphological level? What are the reasons and functions behind the utilization based on the context of spoken written form in Facebook? Mixed language created might only be comprehended by their sociocultural members (friends etc), but not by others. A particular way to code mix can only be considered as a style of speaking when it is in contrast with other ways of speaking in a system which are meaningful to the participants. The contrast is meaningful because it helps participants to identify in-group members, in contrast to out-group people who codemix differently or who do not code-mix at all. Hence, it can bring misinterpretation and misunderstanding to the audience or viewers. Despite the debate of this ruin of the language, this code-mixing culture still thrives in the pages of Facebook. Thus, this study aims to investigate English-Malay code mixing patterns of language alternation used by Malaysian university students and the reasons why this code-mixing occurs among them.

Purpose of the Study The smallest analytical feature of code mixing, which is at the word level, is investigated as to observe whether there are new patterns of code mixing alternation insertion at morphological level. This can be considered as a new phenomenon in code mixing alternation of insertion as the patterns that occur are novel in this area of code-mixing study. This study aims to examine the patterns of code-mixing of insertion that exist in socialnetworking, particularly Facebook, among university students, hoping to identify the reasons of Malay lexical items that have been code-mixed with English morphemes and the functions of their occurrence. The first objective is to classify patterns of Malay code-mixed lexical items; Sebba’s (1998) areas of lack of congruence and Musyken’s (2000) categories of code-mixing of insertion will be employed for this purpose. The second objective is to investigate the reasons university students’ code-mix using data collection from interviews guided by Alam (2006): 9 reasons of students’ code mixed. The third objective is to investigate the functions of code mixing by applying Kanthimathi’s (2005) 8 functions of code-mixing among students. The second and third objectives will be further operationalized by the combination of Halliday, Kachru and Firthian for this sociolinguistic study following the "socially-realistic linguistics".

Research Questions This study addresses three research questions: 1) What are the patterns of code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level utilized by the university students in Facebook? 2) What are the reasons for utilizing Malay-English code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level in Facebook? 3) What are the functions of the code-mixing alternation insertion at morphological level patterns utilized?

Literature Review

Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

75

Code-mixing Alternation (Insertion) There are numerous studies were being done on the spoken or written form of code-alternation of switching and mixing in Malaysia (see Bahiyah , 2003; Muthusamy, 2009; Kia, L. etl, 2011). For instance, as according to Muthusamy (2009), code-switching refers to the change from one language to another not in the same utterance; but in the stretch of conversation. The study focuses on the spoken form of code-switching, resulted to some reasons and functions of code-switching among Indian students speaking Tamil and English. It emphasizes on spoken code-switching form of Tamil school students to the usage of English. In addition, Bahiyah (2003) in her study stated that code-alternation is a verbal interaction where two or more codes are used alternatively and this alternation is employed as a resource for the construction of interactional meaning between two codes, where the study focuses on spoken code-alternation in meeting agenda. In the study of code-mixing of English in the entertainment news of Chinese newspapers in Malaysia, English words most commonly interleaved into the Chinese entertainment news in Malaysia are common nouns, followed by proper nouns, adjectives, verbs, and abbreviations (Kia, L. etl, 2011). These instances introduce the phenomena of code-mixing and codeswitching in the spoken and written forms but never the spoken-written form. Nevertheless, only few studies were investigating on the spoken-written interaction. Spoken-written form of interaction can be observed greatly on social networkings presently, namely Facebook. Facebook is a new form of language; a spoken-written language (Wittkower, 2010; Jettka, 2010). In addition, many studies have been conducted in the area of code-mixing and code-switching in both linguistic and sociolinguistic areas. This study will examine the code-mixing innovation of spoken-written interaction on Facebook in sociolinguistic area. The patterns observed through this study are basically on the insertion of English grammar morphemes into Malay lexical items, which are: a) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = gerund i) Perfect tiduring time. Tidur + ing = tiduring (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 3) ii) Can’t wait to kumpul-ing duit raya! :D Kumpul + ing = kumpul-ing (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 64) b) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb i) Since I am bored today, I am maining game nad menyanyiing in the room  Main + ing = maining (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 56) ii) Watching olympics games and makaning pizza…hahahaha… Makan + ing = Makaning (see Appendixes: Code mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 70) c) Malay prefix + Malay verb + English suffix pluralization (-s) = verb i) When you try, you berharaps. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

76

Ber + harap + s = berharaps (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 71) d) Malay adjective + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb i) Gelojoh-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin Gelojoh + ing = Gelojoh-ing (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 66) ii) Seronoking with best pal Seronok+ ing = Seronoking (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 10) e) Malay noun + English suffix pluralization (-s) = noun i) Survey bajus for raya! Yeay! Baju + s = bajus (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 38) f) Malay prefix + Malay verb + + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb i) Ber-fikir-ing to buy some desert. Ber + fikir + ing = Ber-fikir-ing (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 27) ii) Lecturer sedang menguliahing subjek sejarah Meng + kuliah + ing = menguliahing (see Appendixes: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 6)

Malay vs. English Grammar Currently, the English language behavior in Malaysia has been expended by the locals. As Malay language is the language of government, commerce, and education in Malaysia, (Robison, 2008), English is as well widely utilized by Malaysians. Thus, the tendency to mix both languages (Malay and English) is highly recognized in Malaysia. There are at certain levels where the grammatical significances and differences between Malay and English which may cause difficulties and ease for English language learners. Thus, the possibility of both languages to be code-mixed in Malaysian context, to be specific, is exceptionally high. As students code-mixed according to domains, this occurrence is observed to be appeared when they were socializing with their peers, particularly on spoken-written language, namely Facebook. This trend is perceived as a new language innovation created by the students not due to low proficiency of students, in fact, based on McLellan (2009), the students possess high proficiency of English that lead to this language alternation. In addition, Hudson (1996:53) defines code-mixing as a case “where a fluent bilingual talking to another fluent bilingual changes language without any change at all in the situation.” He also says, “to get the right effect the speakers balance the two languages against each other as a kind of linguistic cocktail”. Thus, there are certain similarities and differences shared between both languages that lead to the usage of both languages in mixing, not only on sentence level but to the extent of word level. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

77

Firstly, in Malay, nouns are not inflected for number. Reduplication of a noun can be used to signify plurality, though this does not take place after numerals. Malay demonstratives also do not have diverse singular and plural forms. For instance, according to Sneddon (1996, p. 129), the phrase of “buku ini” can mean “this book” or “these books”. Thus, to differentiate the pluralism of a Malay noun, students inserted English grammar morpheme of pluralization –s to the Malay lexical to emphasize on the plurality of the nouns mentioned. For instance, the word ‘baju’ which means cloth; the students added the English morpheme pluralization of –s to indicate the plural form of the Malay item – ‘bajus’. Next, English verb tenses are principally complicated for Malay because verbs in Malay are not manifest for tense or number. These are expressed through context, auxiliary (aspect) markers, or temporal adverbs (Prentice, 1987, p. 931). Thus, learners might over-use temporal adverb markers, have trouble with auxiliaries, or having difficulty choosing the right tense construction in English. According to Sneddon, (1996, p. 237), Malay has several copulas, but these are not actually verbs, and their use is optional and especially infrequent in short constructions. Hence, to show that they were doing something at a particular time, the insertion of English grammar morpheme of continuous tense –ing was being utilized by the students. For example, the word ‘lepak’, which means hang out, has been added by English morpheme of continuous tense –ing to indicate the performing action – ‘lepaking’. The morpheme of –ing can be actually inserted in verbs which Bahiyah and Basil’s (1998) as action verbs. Nonetheless, some of the Malay lexical items used were not nonstandard Malay language (Bahasa Malaysia), for instance, ‘membutaing’, which supposed to the standard of ‘tiduring’ (sleeping). ‘Membutaing ‘literally conveys the state of blindness where you close your eyes completely, that carries to the similarity of ‘tiduring’ (sleeping). Subsequently, to some extent, both languages identically share the same rules of pluralization only occurs to nouns. Nevertheless, the students tend to insert the pluralization of English morpheme –s into the Malay verbs, for example, ‘berharaps’ and ‘gerams’. Perhaps, it was to emphasize on the verb acted. This phenomenon signifies the innovation was not only accommodated to standard Malay but as well the nonstandard Malay lexical. In consequence, the lack of congruence in both languages created a novel level of code mixing of insertion. The grammatical structures of both languages appeared to be able to merge to one another as where the students inserted the English grammatical morphemes into the Malay lexical items.

Derivational Vs. Inflectional Morphemes For this study, the code-mixing insertion found is on the morphological level where English morphemes are being inserted into Malay lexical items. Thus, this carries the interest on the types of morphemes found in the data collection. In English, there are two types of morphemes which are derivational and inflectional morphemes. Derivational morpheme changes the root’s class of words or its meaning, or both. For instance, the word ‘unhappy’ derives from the root ‘happy’ added with a prefix ‘un-‘. Both ‘happy’ and ‘unhappy’ are adjectives. The meaning, however, is completely diverse. “I am unhappy” is thoroughly diverse from “I am happy”. In this case, the prefix ‘un-’ is called derivational morpheme.


78

Inflectional morpheme, on the other hand, does not change either the root’s class of words or the meaning. For instance, the word ‘books’, derives from the root ‘book’ added with a suffix ‘–s’. Both ‘book’ and ‘books’ are noun. The meaning is still the same. The suffix ‘–s’ only indicates the plural form. In this case, the suffix ‘–s’ is inflectional. In this study, the morpheme found in the data collection is inflectional morpheme where the English suffixes added to the Malay words do not change the meaning of the words, even though they change some of the word forms. For instance, the word ‘tidur’ (sleep). The insertion of morpheme suffix –ing changes the form from verb to gerund. However, the word ‘tiduring’ still indicates sleeping, which shows the identical action of to sleep. In addition, the word ‘kawan’ (friend) was added with English suffix –s, to form the pluralization of ‘kawans’ (friends). This does not change the meaning of the word.

Methodology Scope of Study A total of 144 postings dated between 2012 and 2013 were collected through participants’ Facebook profile pages based. Hundred and forty four postings were collected to show the frequent phenomenon of the new pattern of code-mixing. The postings are going to be from the students of Universiti Teknologi MARA and Universiti Kuala Lumpur age ranging from 18 to 24 years old. Due to ethical issues, the employment of the data collected for the research purpose was being granted by the students as researcher asked for permission to exploit the data. Interviews were conducted to 10 respondents as it has reached a point of data saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and its purpose was to attain data for selective research questions. Conceptual Framework In terms of the definition from Bhatia and Ritchie (2004), code-mixing refers to the mixing of various linguistic units (morphemes, words, modifiers, phrases, clauses and sentences) primarily from two participating grammatical systems within a sentence, but in this case, within a word. In order to achieve the objective of the present study, the features of English morphemes inserted into Malay lexical items were observed. In the bilingualism literature it has been found that Muysken’s (2000) typology quite similar to the pattern found in this study. In his case, Muysken attempts to generalize a current vast and confusing discussion of code-mixing into an economical typology. He describes three structures of codemixing: (a) Insertion: the insertion of well defined chunks of language B into a sentence that otherwise belongs to language A; (b) Alternation: the succession of fragments in language A and B in a sentence,which is overall not identifiable as belonging to either A or B; (c) Congruent lexicalization: the use of elements from either language in a structure that is wholly or partly shared by language A or B” (p. 6).


79

However, the first type is only found between two related languages that share a lot of structural similarities; it is relevant to the data found in this study, which is insertion. Based on Musyken (2009), insertion occurs when lexical items from one language are incorporated into another, which what this paper focuses on based on the data collected on Facebook. When the switched string is preceded and followed by elements from the other language, which are structurally related, it is a case of insertion (Musyken, 2009). According to Musyken (2000) as cited in Kim (2006), the notion of insertion is clarified as insertion of material such as grammar morphemes, lexical items or entire constituents from one language into a structure from the other language. Here the process of code-mixing is conceived as something similar to borrowing: the insertion of an unfamiliar morpheme of phrasal category into a given lexical. The difference would simply be the size and type of element inserted, e.g. tenses and pluralization. However, in this study, the insertion detected was only on the morphology level. Thus, this comes to a new phenomenon of code-mixing insertion where English grammar morphemes were inserted into Malay lexical items. This can be categorized as insertion, but going into deeper as the focus will not be on the chunk but the word level, which Malay lexical items were being inserted by English grammatical morphemes. Hence, this could be considered as a new category of code-mixing insertion. For more detailed investigation, English morphemes on grammatical items are examined at the level of the Malay lexical items. Sebba’s (1998) areas of lack of congruence in both languages were used as the conceptual framework in interpreting the data. This analysis focuses on areas where there is lack of congruence between Malay and English which has been defined by Sebba: noun phrase structure, pluralization of nouns and verb inflections. This study only focuses on two of these elements which are pluralization of nouns and verb inflections since patterns of the data collected were only in these two areas, which are the insertion of English plural morpheme –s into Malay nouns and English verb (continuous tense) morpheme –ing into Malay verbs. A set of interview questions will be conducted to only 10 respondents it is based on the point of data saturation (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as answer the second research question which is the reasons of students’ code-mixing. The questions were adapted from Conversational Code-mixing of Cantonese Speakers in Hong Kong by Katherine Hoi Ying Chen, 2005, University of Michigan. The data collected then will be interpreted using Alam (2006), 9 reasons of students’ code mixed, which are spontaneous, to draw the attention of others, to show off, to impress for professional purpose, to impress the opposite sex, to alienate a particular group/to take the advantage of, knowing a separate language, lack of translation equivalent, medium of education or training in English and euphemisms. Students are provided with these 9 reasons but they could emerge with any reasons that apt to the situation of their code-mixing. The data then will be further interpreted on the functions of code-mixing. According to Kanthimathi (2009), there are 8 functions of code-mixing among students, which are: a) Attitudinal functions: Students perceive mixing of English with other language is an issue of prestige, a symbol of education, urbaneness and sophistication. It is a smattering of English of educated and broad minded person.


80

b) Register Identification functions: English is to a degree associated with the registers of science and technology, administration, education. c) Expressive functions: Code mixing is performed to express emotions, particularly for tension relief. English of affection such as love are favored more than their language equivalents. The employment of code mixing avoids the negative connotation allied with certain Malay words. d) Directive functions: Students are engaged in code mixing to direct their interlocutor’s attention. Looking for the listeners' directive impression as to showing off his abilities. e) Repetitive functions: Provides definitions of terms and expressions, quoting others, paraphrasing one’s own words in another language. f) Socializing functions: The signal of friendship or solidarity to a group. It emerged as a college lingo in more vernacular style. g) Referential functions: To express referential functions in the following categories: lack of readily available Malay equivalents, terms with which the speakers are more familiar in English than in Malay or vice versa. As well when the speaker cannot find fitting expressions in the base language. h) Instrumental functions: As the matter of aspiration for a good living and of promotion of good education. They code mix to attain proficiency in English as a passport to success and to have sound knowledge and fluency in this language. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of this study is based on the assumption of language is best interpreted in its ‘sociocultural’ context. Data will be further examined using combination of Firthian, Halliday and Kachru sociolinguistic theories called “Socio-realistic linguistic’ theory as this research aims to study the current phenomenon that happens to the changes of patterns of language used in this era on the linguistics and sociolinguistics level. Halliday (1975) refers to his functions of language as metafunctions where there are many functions that language conveys as it develops. The identical prototype happened to this current language development where code-mixing of insertion has been leveled up to the morpheme level according to certain functions. In sociolinguistic literature, Firth (1957), Hymes (1977), Kachru (1981) and others use the idea of social context, or, context of situation. According to Firth (1957), the historical context of the language must be taken into consideration as it brought the success of the changes of dominant outlooks in the linguistics work during this century. Hence, not only looking at the current phenomenon, the historical pattern of this code-mixing of insertion needs to be observed initially. Malinowski (1941), states that the main character of languages is as ‘a mode of action and not an instrument of reflection’. This analysis emphasizes the function of language in ‘practical action’ and as a ‘relation in concentrated human activity, as a piece of human behaviour’. (Ogden & Richards, 1949). It suggests that languages do play functions in human action. Thus, language reflects not only in linguistics form but as well, in the form of behaviourism. Hence, the comprehensibility of a language involves the context of situation of both linguistics and sociolinguistics form of a language. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

81

“Knowledge is transmitted in social contexts, through relationships, like those of parent and child, or teacher and pupil, or classmates, that are defined in the value systems and ideology of the culture. And the words that are exchanged in these contexts get their meaning from activities in which they are embedded, which again are social activities with social agencies and goals.” (Halliday, 1985). This is said that language can be comprehended amongst a society, not by others. Hence, the utilization of codemixing of insertion can only be understood by or within a ‘society’ where it signifies the respondents who utilized it. The need of wide and complex considerations into an attempt to give an adequate analysis of meaning is vital in understanding the whole context of situation. Thus, the root of history of the words mixed needed to be considered (Maybin, 1994). According to Maybin (1994) as well, the difficulties were not encountered in only a single word, but the whole context of the structure as the origin of both code-mixing words and morphemes should be identified. As Hymes (1977) emphasizes on the functions of language and the importance of context to its meanings where there will be a new linguistics rooted from the daily conversation events, which would take into account the social and cultural values. Thus, the new pattern of this code-mixing of insertion phenomenon occurred as it rooted from the everyday conversation event where students inculcate their own culture and values to form the current pattern of code-mixing of insertion. The employment of the above approaches to language as the theoretical framework for this study stems from the fact that code-mixing is used by bilingual speakers in context-bound situations and are best interpreted in terms of the ‘socially-realistic linguistics’ context in which they are employed. These theoretical models will help in understanding the sociocultural and situational context of the data. Findings Various studies employ written texts as a source of data for research on code-mixing, nonetheless, some studies confirm that code-mixing is not limited only to oral communication between bilingual speakers, but that it is also a strategy of interactions that bilinguals use for diverse reasons as well. Thus, this study focuses on the spoken-written interaction which the data obtained was from a socialnetworking, Facebook. The findings of this study propose that the patterns of code-mixing of insertion are as well occurred in the form of morphemes level, where the English grammatical morphemes are inserted in Malay lexical items. This leads to a new phenomenon in code-mixing of insertion. The students created code-mixing words by inserting the English morphemes into Malay words. Findings suggest that code-mixing does occur in spoken-written discourse and the reasons and functions for mixing codes are similar to those of verbal communication for code-switching as some models used are based on spoken discourse models. The language alternation among university students achieved is as an innovation in areas where Malay and English grammar display a lack of congruence. As stated by Gal (1979), a number of instances in which a mix at the end of an argument not only helps to end the interaction but may serve to emphasize a point. Patterns of Code-Mixing of Insertion a) Malay prefix + Malay verb + English suffix pluralization (-s) = verb When you try, you berharaps. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

82

(When you try, you hope too much!) Ber + harap + s = berharaps (verb) (see Appendix B: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 71) The root word of ‘berharap’ is ‘harap’ which means hope (verb). Thus, ‘berharap’ indicates hoping (verb). The prefix Malay of ‘ber-’ means the state of doing something. ‘ber-’ can be translated as the continuous tense of –ing in English. The insertion of pluralization of English morpheme –s indicates that the emphasis was on the verb where putting too much effort on performing the action. From the grammatical point of view, the insertion of pluralization of English morpheme –s into the Malay verb lexical is incorrect or inaccurate. However, the respondent seemed to insert the morpheme –s as she realized that the morpheme indicates pluralization which brings the emphasis to the action of ‘putting too much hope’. Thus, the result is still a verb. Don’t wear clothes that will ‘mengundangs’ leering looks from men. (Don’t wear clothes that will provoke leering looks from men.) Meng + undang + s = mengundangs (verb) (see Appendix B: Code-mixing Alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 33) The prefix Malay of ‘meng-’ indicates the condition of future action. The word ‘mengundangs’ derives from the word ‘undang’ which means provoke (verb). Hence, ‘mengundangs’ is defined as will provoke. It again shows the emphasis on the verb by inserting the English morpheme of pluralization of –s into the Malay verb lexical. It signifies that if you perform the action, this will surely lead to an act by others. Once more, the insertion of pluralization of English morpheme –s into the Malay verb lexical is incorrect or erroneous. Nevertheless, the respondent appeared to insert the morpheme –s as he identified that the morpheme indicates pluralization which he wanted to emphasize on the effect on the action performed. Hence, the result shows the word as a verb. b) Malay noun + English suffix pluralization (-s) = noun Survey bajus for raya! Yeay! (Survey clothes for raya! Yeay!) Baju + s = bajus (noun) (see Appendix B: Code-mixing alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 38) The word ‘baju’ (noun) means cloth. Here, the insertion of English morpheme of pluralization –s is acceptable as the insertion is done to a noun where grammatical rule of English language is not being violated where singular turns to plural, which is bajus (noun). Thus, the insertion of the English morpheme into Malay lexical is grammatically acceptable in English. Hence, the word is considered as a noun. Dinner. Atuk with the bujangs  (Dinner with grandpa and the bachelors) Bujang + s = bujangs (noun) (see Appendix B: Code-mixing alternation (Pluralization Insertion -s): line 56)


83

The word ‘bujang’ (noun) means bachelor. Again, at this point, the insertion of English morpheme of pluralization –s is tolerable as the insertion of –s, as in bujangs, is performed to a noun where grammatical rule of English language is not being violated where it shows pluralism. Hence, the insertion of the English morpheme into Malay lexical is grammatically acceptable in English. Thus, the word shows the result of a noun. Based on all the instances above, the usage of Malay nouns and verbs inserted by English morphemes –s resulted to form nouns and verbs as well. The students seemed to identify the roles of pluralization of –s by inserting the morpheme to the lexical nouns even though in some of the cases, the insertion rather is inaccurate. Rather than using the Malay grammatical rules of pluralization, they employed English grammatical morpheme of –s to create a new phenomenon of code-mixing of insertion. Verbs in Malay do not inflect for tense, which is marked adverbially (Cumming, 1991; Svalberg & Fatimah, 1998). In this study, there are seventy two examples where the English continuous tense –ing morpheme is retained on Malay verbs in language-English context. The verb English morpheme is present, hence resulting in the occurrence of modified Malay verbs. The insertion of English morphemes –ing could only actually being inserted in verbs which Bahiyah & Basil’s (1998) called as the categorization of action verbs (for example, take, made, gave, and look). The lack of congruence in Malay and English grammar rules of continuous tense -ing leads to the occurrence of these patterns as well. In Malay Language, in order to identify the continuous tense or state of performing an action, the verb lexical should be inserted with prefixes such as me-, men-, meng, men- and ber-, depending of the verbs themselves. The rules stated that the indication of Malay prefixes of continuous tense is depending on the Malay verbs. For instance, the word lepak. The continuous tense of this word should be melepak where the indication of Malay prefix is me-. However, the insertion of English morpheme of continuous tense –ing to the verb has made the Malay word to be lepaking. The insertion of English morpheme of continuous tense –ing has made the Malay verb to be as still in the identical meaning but being mixed with English grammatical structure. Nevertheless, both Malay and Englsih languages share the same grammatical rules where continuous tense can only be done to verbs when the indication is action performing. In this study, students inserted the continuous tense of –ing not only into verbs but as well as adjectives. Hence, this also leads to the curiosity of the students’ braveness and creativeness in doing so. Examples of Malay lexical with English morpheme –ing a) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = gerund Perfect tiduring time. (Perfect sleeping time) Tidur + ing = tiduring (gerund) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation (Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 3, pg. 140) The word ‘tidur’ means sleep (verb). The insertion of English morpheme –ing (tiduring) may lead to the formation of continuous tense. However, the insertion of English morpheme –ing does not imply the state of sleeping but is a non-finite verb form used to make a verb phrase that can serve in place of a noun phrase. Thus, the result of the code-mixing insertion leads to the formation of gerund. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

84

Can’t wait to kumpul-ing duit raya! :D (Can’t wait to collecting Raya money!):D Kumpul + ing = kumpul-ing (gerund) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 64) The word ‘kumpul’ means collect (verb). Thus, the word ‘kumpul-ing’ defines collecting. To some extent, the students inserted the English morpheme of –ing, without realizing that they have transformed the Malay verb into a gerund. They perhaps inserted the morpheme of –ing to indicate the future action or action that is currently performed by them. Here, the code-mixing of Malay lexical verb and English morpheme -ing has resulted to gerund. b) Malay verb + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb Since I am bored today, I am maining game and menyanyiing in the room  (Since I am bored today, am playing game and singing in the room ) Main + ing = maining (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 56) The word ‘main’ means play (verb). The insertion of English morpheme –ing guides to the pattern of ‘maining’ which means playing (verb). This insertion formulates a verb into a verb as well but in the form of continuous tense, showing that the respondent was in a state of performing the action. Hence, the action performed shows that it is currently happening. Thus, the code-mixing word is defined as a verb. Makaning with my family. (Eating with my family) Makan + ing = Makaning (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 8) The word ‘makan’ means eat (verb). Therefore, ‘makaning’ is defined as eating (verb). Here, the employment of English morpheme –ing was accurately inserted into Malay verbs (makan + ing = makaning). The students acknowledge the roles of English morpheme –ing, which is to indicate the verb of continuous tense (the state of currently performing an action), therefore, the insertion of the –ing morpheme stands for the indication of current situation that is happening. Thus, the code-mixing shows that it is a verb. c) Malay adjective + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb Gelojoh-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin (Greedy-ing @Pasta Zamnai with Fatin.) Gelojoh + ing = Gelojoh-ing (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 66) The word ‘gelojoh’ means greedy (adjective). Here, the insertion of English morpheme –ing was being exaggerated, where the adjective was being inserted with the suffix of –ing morpheme. In English grammatical structure, an adjective cannot be inserted with any suffixes excluding –ly, as to form Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

85

adverb. In this case, the word ‘gelojoh’ (greedy) was inserted with –ing, indicating that the respondent was performing the action of eating greedily, where it becomes gelojoh-ing. Although from the point of view of grammar it is incorrect, the message was still conveyed, where it turned out to be a verb as the person was performing the adjective. Hence, the code-mixing guides the word to become a verb. Seronoking with best pal (Having fun with best pal) Seronok + ing = Seronoking (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 10) The word ‘seronok’ means fun (adjective). For this instance, the students inserted the English morpheme of –ing into Malay adjective as to form verb to show that they were performing the action of the adjective mentioned. The respondent changed the adjective of ‘seronok’ (fun) to the verb of ‘seronoking’ (having fun). This condition is against the English grammatical rules but the message can still be understood by the readers. Hence, the code-mixing word constructed becomes a verb. d) Malay prefix + Malay verb + + English suffix continuous tense (-ing) = verb Since I am bored today, I am maining game and menyanyiing in the room  (Since I am bored today, am playing game and singing in the room ) Me + nyanyi + ing = menyanyiing (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 56) The word ‘menyanyiing’ means singing (verb). It derives from a Malay verb ‘nyanyi’ which means sing. The Malay prefix ‘me-’ indicates the state of performing the action as the same indication was done by inserting the English morpheme of –ing to the Malay lexical verb. Here, the insertion of English morpheme of –ing has being redundant where the Malay prefix ‘me-’ has been used initially. It tells that the respondent was emphasizing to the state of performing the action in both ways (‘me-’ and –ing). The usage of these affixes result to the utilization non-standardizes words of both languages. However, this code-mixing has formed a verb. Ber-fikir-ing to buy some desert. (Thinking to buy some desert) Ber + fikir + ing = berfikiring (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 27) The prefix ‘ber-’ indicates the state of performing the action. It signifies the English morpheme –ing. The word ‘fikir’ means think (verb), while ‘berfikir’ is defined as thinking (verb). The usage of Malay prefix ‘ber-’ and English morpheme –ing has led to redundancy of continuous tense. Thus, the word is a verb as well. However, the utilization of both affixes pilots to the non-standardization of both languages. The meaning is still being conveyed but the formation of the word is considered as inaccurate. Lecturer sedang menguliahing subjek sejarah (The lecturer is revising on History subject!) Meng + kuliah + ing = menguliahing (verb) (see Appendix C: Code-mixing Alternation(Verb – Continuous Tense Insertion -ing): line 6) Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

86

The Malay prefix ‘meng-’ indicates the English morpheme continuous tense of –ing. The word ‘kuliah’ means study (verb), while the word ‘menguliah’ means studying (verb). In Malay language itself, there is no such word of ‘menguliah’. However, the application of English morpheme –ing leads to the formation of performing the action. The action has, in a way, being emphasized by the respondent to show that he was studying hard on History subject. Hence, the code-mixing formed a verb. According to all the examples above, the usage of Malay verbs and adjectives inserted with English morphemes –s resulted in the form of almost verbs and gerunds additionally. The students tend to recognize the roles of English morpheme of –ing by inserting the morpheme to the Malay lexical items. The students are aware of the usage of the English morpheme of –ing by inserting it, although not all are considered as appropriate, in a morphological sense. It produces a new phenomenon of code-mixing of insertion. Reasons of Code-Mixing of Insertion Alam (2006), comes out with 9 reasons of students’ code-mixing; spontaneous, to draw the attention of others, to show off, to impress for professional purpose, to impress the opposite sex, to alienate a particular group, to take the advantage of knowing a separate language, lack of translation equivalent, medium of education or training in English and euphemisms. Among these reasons, there are 5 reasons identified in the context of CMC, specifically Facebook, which is aligned with the patterns of code-mixing of insertion created by the students. The reasons identified are spontaneous, to draw the attention of others, to show off, to take the advantage of knowing a separate language and lack of translation equivalent. Speakers or writers might apply code-mixing according to own reasoning and same applies to the findings of this study. For spontaneous reasoning, two respondents indicated that they code-mixed in such way spontaneously. They spontaneously posted in Facebook without thinking of the grammatical rules of both languages as they already recognized the grammar systems of both languages. They only did the code-mixing in very little amount which is the morphemes. This could be apt to Chan (1998), where code-mixing of English always occurred in single words and surrounded by other words of other languages. This happens because English words are commonly being considered as content words, rather than purpose words, where it was done spontaneously by the students. It was formed linguistically, rather than sociolinguistic rationale. Besides that, one respondent stated that she code-mixed such way as to draw the attention of others. As it has been said that code-mixing serves to who are well-articulated, it involves central aspects of grammatical competence (Singh 1981:92). Thus, to show off or brag of discerning both languages well could be a valid reason to this code-mixing of insertion occurrence. Sridhar & Sridhar (1980) and Woolford (1983) indicate that a bilingual who is able to use different codes in a speech situation is called ‘the bilingual’s grammar’. This shows the capability of the students to create a new style of communication and to be bragged of it is ‘necessary’ to them. Additionally, the respondent is a female. According to psychological needs of a woman, one of them is attention. Thus, the possible implied reason of to draw attention of others is the respondent is female. However, according to two respondents, they code-mix because they are lack of translation Grumperz (1982) remarks that when bilinguals are aware of their mixed language, they blame a “lapse of Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

87

attention” for their poor linguistic performance and assure improvement by the eradication of language mixing. Hence, this displays that code-mixing occurred not only because of high proficiency level of both languages; nevertheless the lack of translation equivalent could be one of the reasons too. However, Poplock (1980) and Nortier (1990) presume that people who code-mix fluently and effortlessly are apt to be fairly competent bilingually. This says that it is not because the respondents are incompetence but they are competence enough to substitute the lacking translation to other languages. As stated by certain respondents (Respondent 5 and 7) in this study that the reason of them codemixing was to show off when they are on Facebook, nevertheless, according to Ho (2007), students in Hong Kong use English lesser as they do not want to be regarded as snobbish or showing off and observe English as a prestige language. Thus, they do not want to be alienated since the social sanction against English in Hong Kong among Chinese is very sturdy (Gibbson, 1987; Luke, 1998). Meanwhile, in this study, the respondents confessed themselves that the reason of the code-mixing is to show off where they indicated that due to high possession of both English and Malay. In addition, according to Luke (1998), people code-mixing to differentiate between high and low variety between two languages. He states that people code-mix because they do possess both languages well. This would be a strong support to the respondent’s reason to show off. Besides, two respondents (Respondent 6 and 10) code-mix to alienate a particular group. They only wanted certain group of people to be involved in the conversation. They posted certain posts according to “the complexity of the social relations they are engaged in” with the certain other users (ibid, p. 12). They used “jargon relating to or used in online communications”, called cyberspeak (Merriam-Webster, 2012), to alienate themselves from others. According to Huang (2004), code choice and language use in the emails used for interpersonal communication. Significantly, the communication is rigid to only interpersonal ‘clan’ but in this case; it is openly read by others compared to emails. In the students’ communication cluster, the conversation is severe to only on the relationship between the particular language use and individual values, communicative strategies, language attitudes and functions within particular socio-cultural contexts (Boeschoten, 1998 and Azuma, 1998). Finally, one respondent indicated that the reason of her code-mixing is to follow the current language trend. She indicated that such code-mixing is considered as language fashion. Kachru (1989) and Kamwangamalu (1989) state the other causes of code-mixing comprise modernisation, westernization, efficiency, professionalism and social advancement, where the language is being utilized by the current modern generation. Alam (2006) indicates that this type of code-mixing of insertion happens to the young generation. Irvine’s (2001) commencement of code-mixing represents that people code-mixing to display different ‘styles’ of speaking. This shows that code-mixing exists in some styles created by the users of the languages. As the time goes, the development of language goes along with it and it expands its styles and molds into a trend or fashion. Some reasons and motivations are also highly related to messages alone. According to Bhatia and Ritche (2004), there are some factors which generate code-mixing such as quotations, reiteration, topiccomment/relative clauses, hedging, interjections and idioms and deep-rooted cultural wisdom. According to Grosjean (1982), in bilingual societies, it is normal for speakers to code-mix. Bilinguals usually clarify that the reason why they code-mix is that they lack facility in one language when talking about a certain topic. Grosjean (1982) states that in some societies, members of a community are reported to code-mix frequently based on certain topics discussed with particular people. In addition, Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

88

Fishman (2000) affirms that one of the first controlling factors in language choice is group membership. Therefore, there are various reasons identified in accordance to the occurrence of code-mixing. Moreover, all respondents agreed that they code-mixed most on the time when they were online. Thus, this code-mixing of insertion patterns seemed to occur on CMC related postings where the occurrence was based on the variety purposes of the respondents. Surprisingly, the respondents inserted the English morphemes correctly into Malay words. They were not afraid to insert the English morphemes into the Malay words and confidently posted them in their Facebook. This considered as individualism reasoning ahead the interpreted code-mixing of insertion words performed by the respondents. Functions of Code-Mixing of Insertion There are 8 functions of code-mixing among students, which are attitudinal, register identification, expressive, directive, repetitive, socializing, referential and instrumental functions (Kanthimathi, 2005). Based on data collected in CMC context, out of 8 reasons, 4 reasons were being identified which are; attitudinal, directive, socializing and referential functions. According to two respondents, they perceived their code-mixing as the attitudinal functions. They believe language mixing is an issue of prestige, a symbol of education, urbaneness and sophistication. Widdowson (1994) claims that for the reason that of their communicative redundancy that certain grammatical traits occasionally attain another function, explicitly that of a marker of social identity and prestige. The functions show that having the knowledge of both languages could be the icon of urbanism and prestige where it leads to critical and creative thinking. As stated by Alam (2006), such code-mixing are made by the young generations where the symbol of education development is displayed through such code-mixing invention. The students seem to reject the feeling of fright to insert the English morphemes into the Malay words and yet, perceive this as a stage of high reputation. In addition, one respondent indicated that her function of code-mixing serves directive functions which to direct her interlocutor’s attention. As according to Khaddage & Bray (2011, p. 3797), a lot of teenage Facebook users are extremely enthusiastic to this socialnetworking, thus making it a “powerful dynamic social network environment” preferred by students the world over. This is the most influential current channel for the students to make themselves visible. Thus, the respondent posted such way to direct people’s attention so that she is notified by other Facebook users regardless the English grammatical form inserted into the Malay words. In fact, it is believed that one’s identity is prominent “through perception, meaning and language” (ibid, p.39). This is accordingly how the respondent molds her identity through her usage of language via Facebook. Besides that, two other respondents categorized their code-mixing as socializing functions. They posted such way to socialize to only certain group of Facebook users. Based on Byod (2007), the internet users, or any user connected through an electronic network can be considered as a community. Thus, they need to speak the same lingo in order to be connected and the code-mixing alternation functions within this community to mold their identity. Ure (1974) also declares both code-switching and mixing are “feature of social, not individual behavior – a register in the community’s register range, learned as part of linguistic socialization” (p. 227). The respondents posted the code-mixing of insertion without having the fear of inserting the English morphemes into Malay words, and intended to create a ‘clan’ by using these patterns of code-mixing. Ultimately, this helps building relationship through particular conversation and vice versa, it could lead to jeopardizing relationship as well. For instance a study by Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

89

Pandharipande (1983: 102-106), remarks that a Hindi-Marathi writer might apply the certain linguistic markers to identify his/her characters: (a) Persianized Hindi kinship terms and vocabulary into Marathi; is used to mark the religious identity of the character. (b) Bound morphemes from Hindi into Marathi; is used to mark an uneducated person's speech. (c) Nativization of syntactic patterns from Hindi into Marathi; it serves to mark the character's regional identity. This could be relate to the findings of Respondents 6 and 10, the code-mixing words serve as socializing functions where it as a signal of friendship or solidarity to a group. Besides, two respondents declared that their code-mixing serves up as referential functions. They referred to the original language to substitute the other language used. However, this occurs not because of the users are incompetent, yet they recognized the correct form to substitute the lacking morphemes of target words used. Pennington (1998b, p.9) claims that the term “lexical bilingualism” is to exemplify this pattern of code-mixing and proposes that the association of English is more a subject of familiarity with a definite number of words and phrases than fluency in a second language. The students eventually substituted the correct English grammatical morphemes into the Malay words as referential functions. Moreover, the respondents might feel that using English morphemes in Malay words was more appropriate (Urbäck, 2007) in the context they were in. Further, two respondents claimed that the expressive functions served their code-mixing of insertion. They posted the patterns spontaneously to express emotions and to avoid negative connotation of certain words. According to Nababan (2000), the feature of code-mixing is informality, where in such formal circumstances; it is infrequently found the phenomenon of code-mixing. Thus, any code-mixing patterns could be created and served as expressive functions, despite the grammar rules of both languages. However, astonishingly the code-mixing created is grammatically acceptable even the respondents inserted the English morphemes to complete particular Malay words, and they are fearless and daring to invent such patterns. Finally, the finding found that one respondent asserted that her code-mixing pattern served as instrumental functions where the matter of inspiration for a good living and of promotion of good education. It could be assumed that depending on the context of situation, code-mixing may provide clues about the education, socio-economic status, regional provenance, register, religion. (e.g., Pillai 1974, Sridhar 1978, Dabke 1983, Pandharipande 1983). She perceived the functions as a development of her life, particularly in English usage. However, the motion of against the usage of English was fairly strong once in certain countries, namely Hong Kong. However, it has been reported (Ho, 2007) that parents themselves use code-mixing despite their own limited knowledge of English to achieving their children’s academic success. They have perceived this towards the instrumental functions where codemixing is language of education and modernization. Based on the findings, code-mixing does bring functional elements in it, depending on the context. Thus, it is apparently showed that code-mixing could bring the diverse identity significance functions to the writer or even the speaker; which is in this case a spoken-written form. It is measured as individualism functioning upon the purposes code-mixing of insertion words did by the respondents. Proceeding of the International Conference On Humanities Sciences And Education ICHE2014 (E-ISB: 978-967-12022-1-0) 24-25 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by worldresearchconference.com

90

Conclusion The positive impact of this phenomenon is that it is clearly an innovation to the language where the users creatively inserted and mixed the English verb morphemes into Malay lexical items. This language alternation exists not due to low proficiency of students; in fact, McLellan (2009) explains that high level of proficiency in both Malay and English is a requirement for this language alternation to happen. This phenomenon shows how the users are in the process of adapting the use of English in daily and informal conversations yet still maintaining close relationship with the native language. Celik (2003) states that code-mixing can be functional to vocabulary teaching in EFL/ESL classes as this study shows that vigilant and sensible use of code-mixing can direct to appropriate successful teaching and learning of new vocabulary in classes. Khnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, and Duran (2005; as cited in Kim 2006) mention that the other way to view this language alternation other than corruption to language “is to recognize the cultural, social, and communicative validity of the mixing of two traditionally isolated linguistic codes as a third legitimate code.” Kim (2006) adds that this phenomenon may influence bilinguals’ language positively. This can be seen through the usage of the language alternation when users intelligently insert English verb morphemes into Malay lexical items. The users understand greatly how both languages work. However, as interesting and innovative as it can be, this phenomenon might be viewed by the linguists of both languages as corruption to the language as asserted by Thomas (1991) “purism is an aspect of the codification, cultivation and planning of standard languages” (as cited in Cser, 2009). Other than corruption to the language, this phenomenon might worry academicians if students apply this language alternation in academic domains. It would be much better for other people to know about certain bilingual phenomena and try to accept the bilingual phenomena naturally, so that they could see how much social and cultural aspects affect bilinguals’ language and learn how bilinguals and their monolingual interlocutors should lead to smooth conversation. This study is purposed to add to the limited studies in language alternation of code-mixing of insertion between English and Malay in Malaysia. This study will help future researchers in conducting further studies apart from clarifying to the public about this current language culture among university students in language alternation.


91

Malay-English Code-mixing Alternation Insertion at Morphological

Recommend Documents