AN ANALYSIS OF CODE MIXING USED BY BLACKBERRY USERS THROUGH
BLACKBERRY MESSENGER
(a Case Study in a Blackberry Application)
Santika Rizky Lestari
NIM. 09.22.0312
e-mail: santikalestari111@yahoo.co.id
English Education Study Program Language and Arts Department of Sekolah Tinggi
Keguruan dan IlmuPendidikan (STKIP) Siliwangi Bandung
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this research entitled “Analysis of Code Mixing used by blackberry users through Blackberry
Messenger” were to find out what types of code – mixing occurred in the their status / personal message and
broadcast, and to find out the reasons why the blackberry users mix their language. In this research the writer
used Qualitative method. The populations were 20 Indonesian blackberry users who were also chosen randomly
from “friend list” of the writer`s blackberry application, the sample was entire population. The data collected
through recording their status / personal message and broadcast from April 18th to Mei 17th, 2013 viewed in the
20 blackberry users. The data were analyzed and classified into the category of each types of code-mixing based
on Muysken`s theory. To analyze the reasons why the blackberry users used code-mixing in their status /
personal message and broadcast, the writer used Hoffman`s theory. The findings of the research showed that:
the blackberry users tended to use insertion code mixing (33.33%), alternation code mixing (58.97%) and
congruent lexicalization (7.69%). The reason why the blackberry users did code mixing included: because of real
lexical need (45%), Talking about a particular topic (40%) and because of speech content clarification (5%).
someone saying something like "sorry Gan BC, ane
mau nawarin produk bagus neh, buat info detail call
aja ya Gan" (note that "sorry", “detail”, “call”, is the
English word inserted in the Indonesian utterance).
You can see that in code mixing, you do not alternate
the whole sentence, but you only use one word or two.
This often happen unintentionally, sometimes you have
a bunch of lexicons that get jumbled in your brain, and
you often use more than one language, but we do not
realize it.
A. BACKGROUND
Language has an important part in human life and
has several usages for human as a mean of
communication and interaction in community life. It
means that language is a key of communication in
connecting the people, without a good language we
would be unable to express our thoughts, ideas, feeling
and we would not be able to share our knowledge.
Based on that statement above, we can indicate that it
is impossible for the people to live together without
communication.
B. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Put simply, bilingualism is the ability to use two
languages. However, defining bilingualism is
problematic since individuals with varying bilingual
characteristics may be classified as bilingual. A person
called themselves as a bilingualism when they used
more than one language, or even they mix their
language. As for code mixing, it occurs when you
incorporate small units (words or short phrases) from
one language to another one. It is often unintentional
and is often in word level. You probably say or hear
1. Definition of Code Mixing
Wardhaugh (1986: 102) stated that:
“Code mixing is the particular dialect or language one
chooses to use on any occasion, and a system for
communication between two or more parties”.
2. Types of Code Mixing
Muysken (2000) suggests that: “there are three
main code-mixing patterns which may be found in
bilingual speech communities: insertion, alternation
and congruent lexicalization”.
1
a. Insertion
The insertion of words here means the language unit
that stands on its own, it consist of free morpheme
sand bound morphemes. One common definition of
a word is the following “a word is any unit of
language that in writing, appears between spaces or
between a space and a hyphen”. Words do not
always constitute the smallest meaningful units in a
language. Instead words are sometimes constructed
of smaller parts. These parts are called morphemes
b. Alternation Code Mixing
Muysken (2000) stated that “the alternation arises
when two languages can be substituted for each
other function in terms of both grammatically and in
terms of lexical”.
c. Congruent Lexicalization
Congruent lexicalization as usually defined not only
requires that the languages in contact be structurally
congruent, but also presupposes a high level of
bilingual competence, as well relatively equal
prestige and no tradition of overt language
separation.
among bilingual or multilingual people can
sometimes mark an interjection or sentence
connector. It may happen unintentionally or
intentionally.
e. Repetition used for clarification
About this reason, Hoffman (1991) said that “when
a bilingual wants to clarify his/her speech so that it
will be understood more by the listener, he/she can
sometimes use both of the languages that he masters
saying the same utterance (the utterance is said
repeatedly
f. Intention of clarifying the speech content for
interlocutor
When a bilingual person talks to another bilingual as
suggested by Hoffman (1991), it was mentioned that
there will be lots of code switching and code mixing
that occur. It means making the content of his/her
speech runs smoothly and can be understood by the
hearer.
g. Expressing group identity
Code switching and code mixing can also be used to
express group identity. The way of communication
of academic people in their disciplinary groupings,
are obviously different from other groups (Hoffman,
1991).
3. Why People Code Mix The Language?
People code mix within their speech or writing,
however, this study will focus on theories given by
Hoffman (1991) and Saville-Troike (1986).
Hoffman (1991) classified the reasons to do code
mixing into seven points, they are as follow:
a. Talking about a particular topic
People sometimes prefer to talk about a particular
topic in one language rather than in another.
Sometimes, a speaker feels free and more
comfortable to express their emotions, excitements,
or even anger in a language that is not their
everyday language.
b. Quoting somebody else
Regarding this reason, Hoffman (1991) suggested
that “people sometimes like to quote a famous
expression or saying of some well-known figures”.
c. Being emphatic about something
Usually, when someone who is talking using a
language that is not his native tongue suddenly
wants to be emphatic about something, as Hoffman
(1991) stated “he/she, either intentionally or
unintentionally, will switch from his second
language to his first language.
d. Interjection (Inserting sentence fillers or sentence
connectors)
Regarding the reason, Hoffman (1991) suggested
that “language switching and language mixing
C. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. Research Method
The research of this study is simply qualitative
though some quantification is also involved in
answering how often code mixing occurs. This study
uses quantification to shows percentages of the code
mixing type appearances that were analyzed in form of
table.
The present study uses qualitative method because,
similar to other qualitative research it attempts to
generates rich, detailed and valid (process) data that
contribute to in-depth understanding of the context.
Qualitative research is a set of research techniques in
which data are obtained from a relatively group of
respondents. The most important qualitative research
techniques are the narrative and the visual research,
which is still often neglected.
2. Research Population and Sample
Populations are groups consisting all people to
whom researchers wish to apply theirs findings Crowl
(1996:6). The populations of this research are the
Indonesian writer`s friends who used Blackberry
messenger application.
2
Samples, which are subsets of people used to
re-present populations Crowl (1996:6). The sample in
this research is all entire population.
2. Analyze the questionnaires results based on the
category of reasons from the theories given by
Hoffman ( 1991) and Saville-Troike (1986).
3. Classify and transfer data into tables.
The numbers would show what was the most
frequent or maybe the least reason uttered by
Blackberry users.
B. Respondents
The respondents of this study are the Indonesian
writer`s friends who used Blackberry messenger
application. The data were taken from 20 Indonesian
writer`s friends` status and broadcast. The status and
broadcast were chosen randomly from “contact list”, in
the writer`s contact list. They were asked to fill in the
research questionnaire (see appendix) related to the
study through chat service in blackberry messenger
application.
The collected data were identifed, clasified, and
analisied based on the code mixing used. To find out
the presented categories of code swicthing used in
“Gaul Bareng Bule” talk show program. The
presenatages is determined by using the Sudjana’s
F
formula: P  x 100 %
N
Explanation:
P = as percentage
F = as frequency of words
N = as total of words (Sudjana, 1996:47)
The presentation of the data analysis would be
discussed in the next chapter with the writer exegesis
toward the result analysis. Then exegesis connected
with the previous theory and study.
C. Instrument
The main data were collected by recording status
and broadcast from 20 Indonesian writer`s friend
account. The data were taken to answer the first and
second statements of problem. The data would reveal
the types of code mixing, and so the frequencies of
their occurrences in the respondent`s status and
broadcast. The respondent`s status and broadcast were
chosen as the sources of this study because the
researcher has been interested in the way Indonesian
Blackberry users communicate with other users,
Blackberry users are used to mix their language in
exchanging the status and broadcast.
Actually, there are many languages, including
regional languages found in their status and broadcast.
However, this study concerned only to the status and
broadcast written between Indonesia and English.
D. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Data Findings of Types of Code Mixing
The researcher will briefly review the relevant
distinctions that were made to point out differences
between code-mixing patterns. Muysken (2000)
distinction among insertion, alternation, and congruent
lexicalization.
The data was a transcription from writer`s
blackberry friend list and would be presented in the
form of tables. The data showed that the three types of
code mixing occurred in their status, personal message
and broadcast. However, it appeared that insertion
mixing tends to be the most frequent type of mixing
used in their blackberry messenger application. The
discussion of each type is as follows:
D. Procedure
The data collected through recording the comments
from April 18th to Mei 17th, 2013 viewed in the 20
Indonesian writer`s friend account. All the comment
between the ranges of time was recorded in form of
data transcriptions.
The data were analyzed and classified into the
category of each types of mixing in form of table. This
process is to answer what types of' code mixing
occurred in the status and broadcast of the blackberry
users.The next procedure can be described as follows:
1. Insertion
One of the types of code-mixing that appeared in
blackberry messenger application is insertion. This
type, as suggested by Muysken (2000), involves the
switch that occurs at the level of words within
sentences. The mixing can be in the middle of
sentences, clauses, or even words. The present study
shows that there are 13 Status / Personal Message
(33,33%) categorized into the insertion code mixing.
1. Select the respondents, in this case Blackberry users,
to fill in the questionnaire. This procedure is to
reveal and explore the reason of code mixing in
Blackberry messenger application.
3
Like in other similar previous studies, such as from
Ryanda (2005), Apriani (2006), Indharyanti (2006),
Miftahudin (2011) apparently, the insertation code
mixing seemed also to be the most frequent type of
mixing used in bilinguals society.
As can be seen in table 4.1, the alternation code
mixing seemed to be the most frequent type of code
mixing that occurred in the comments (58.97%); the
second type is insertion (33.33%); and the last frequent
code mixing is congruent lexicalization (7.69%). This
numbers showed that many blackberry users appeared
to use insertion code mixing.
2. Alternation
In which code mixed occurred within a clause
boundary. In other words, alternation represents mixing
at the clause, phrase level, or at word level if no
morphological adaption occurs and the mentioned
above criteria for the distinguishing code-mixing and
borrowings are observed.
The study found that the table (see table 4.1 in the
appendix) shows that it is recorded (58,97%)
alternation, meaning it is in the first place of the
frequent type of code mixing occurred in the
blackberry status / personal message and broadcast.
C. The Reasons of code mixing occurrences
Answering the third question from the statements of
problem, this section discussed the reasons why the
blackberry users did code mix in their blackberry
messenger application. In this case, the present study
uses theories given by Hoffman and Saville-Troike that
“concerned about the reasons for code mixing”.
Based on the responses from the questionnaire
distributed to 20 respondents, this study found out that
there are 5 criteria of reasons according to Hoffman
and Saville-Troike that frequently chosen by
respondents. The explanation about the five reasons of
the blackberry users mix their language are as follows:
3. Congruent Lexicalization
The last type of code mixing that appeared in the
study was congruent lexicalization. It Shows that
congruent lexicalization occurred to be fewest type
used by blackberry users (7,69%).
Tabel 4.3
The Reasons of code-mixing
B. The Frequency of Code Mixing Occurrences
No
The researcher will briefly review the relevant
distinctions that were made to point out differences
between code-mixing patterns. Muysken (2000)
distinction among insertion, alternation, and congruent
lexicalization.
The data was a transcription from blackberry status/
personal message and broadcast then would be
presented in the form of tables. The data showed that
the three types of code mixing occurred in the
blackberry messenger application. However, it
appeared that alternation code mixing tends to be the
most frequent type of code mixing used in the
blackberry messenger application. The discussion of
each type is as follows.
Table 4.1
Table of types of code mixing occurrences
No
1
Types of Code
Mixing
Insertion
Alternation Code
2
Mixing
Congruent
3 Lexicalization
Total
Frequency
33.33%
23
58.97%
3
7.69%
39
100%
F
P
1
Talking about particular topic
8
40%
2
Quoting somebody else
1
5%
3
Being emphatic about something
-
-
4
Because of lexical words
9
45%
5
Repetition used for clarification
-
-
6
Clarifying the speech content for the
1
5%
interlocutor
7
Expressing group identity
1
5%
8
Softening and strengthening request or
-
-
command
Percentages
(%)
13
Reasons
9
Inserting a real lexical need
-
-
10
Excluding other people when a
-
-
20
100%
comment is intended for only a limited
audience
TOTAL
Briefly, the numbers show that the most frequent
reason used by mostly blackberry users to do code
mixing is because of real lexical need (45%). The
reason seems to be the main reason that stimulates
4
them the most to do code mixing. It could be because
of the lack of equivalent lexicon in the first language,
so that they tend to use the real lexical in other
language. Then, it is followed by Talking about a
particular topic (40%) in the second place, it is not
surprising because love is one the most important
aspects in human`s life. Thus, it seems the least
frequent reason chosen by blackberry users are quoting
somebody else, clarifying the speech content for
interlocutor and expressing group identity, since there
was only one user voted it (5%).
blackberry users seemed to concern mostly on
topic, style, efficiency, expression, that covered in 5
categories of reasons suggested by Hoffman and
Saville-Troike to conducting their comments.
E. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
1. Conclusions
This chapter presents conclusion related to the study
in line with the statements of the problem and
suggestion for further research.
After analyzing the data, it comes to the conclusion
that blackberry users mostly did code mixing. The
data presents that all the three types suggested by
Muysken (2000) such as insertion, alternation and
congruent lexicalization, appeared in blackberry
messenger application. Data suggested that among
all the three types of code mixing, it appears that
alternation tends to be the main type of code mixing
that occurred in blackberry messenger application
(58.97%), followed by insertion code mixing
(33.33%). Different from those two types,
Congruent lexicalization seems to occur the least
frequent type of code mixing that appeared in the
comments (7.69%).
functions in each type of code mixing. Moreover,
since there is still a small number of research on
code mixing in writing, therefore, it could analyze
other written literary works, e.g. novels, poetry or
even drama scripts.
b. It is also suggested that blackberry users have to
consider several factors such as whom they are
speaking to and when or where tile conversation
takes place before they do the code mixing.
Moreover, it is also intended that blackberry users
could avoid misunderstanding among those who
are not familiar to certain words in other language.
2. Suggestions
Based on the result of this research, the writer has
the recommendations as follows:
a. These research findings could give inputs for
further studies that will discuss code mixing. It is
suggested that further studies can analyze the
Sudijono, Anas. (2009). PengantarStatistikPendidikan.
Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindoPersada.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burns, Robert B. (1995). Introduction to Research
Methods.Melbourne: Longman Australia.
Hoffman, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism.
New York: Longman.
Holmes. J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.
New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology
of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McMillan, H. James & Schumacher, Sally. (2001).
Research in Education A Conceptual Introduction
(Fifth Edition). New York:Longman.
Spolsky, B. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wikipedia.
2008.
Internet,
(online)
(htpp://encyclopedia. Internet. Html, accessed on
May 22, 2008).
5