CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter contains three sections, they are: review of the previous studies,

review of the theoretical studies, and theoretical framework. The first section

presents the previous studies in subjects related to this study. This is then followed

by the second section that talks about the theoretical reviews underlying this

study. Further, the last section describes the theoretical framework which is used

as the basic of this study.

2.1 Review of the Previous Studies

Recently, as a common phenomenon for people in bilingual or multilingual

situation, code-switching or code-mixing has been studied by a number of

scientists. Further, there are some studies which related to code-switching,

including some final projects and theses of English Department of Semarang State

University: (1) Permatasari (2003) who wrote “The Functions of English-

Indonesia Code-Switching: The Case of Sunday Morning Radio Broadcast on

RCT FM”. She tried to describe code-switching in Sunday Morning Radio

Broadcast on RCT FM. (2) Sugestiningrum (2002) who conducted her research

entitled “An Analysis on Factors Causing Code-Switching Spoken by Announcers

of Gajah Mada 102.6 FM in Gama Fans Program”. Her research was aimed at

determining the factors causing code-switching spoken by announcers of Gajah

11
 12

Mada 102,6 FM in Gama Fans Program. (3) Surati (2003) who proposed “An

Analysis on the Use of Code-Switching in Casual Conversations among the

Seventh Semester Students of English Department of UNNES in the Academic

Year 2002/2003”. Her research was aimed at describing and analyzing the reasons

of the use of code-switching in casual conversation among the seventh semester

students of English Department of UNNES in academic year 2002/2003 based on

Hyme’s framework SPEAKING. Some studies above are the final projects of

English Department of Semarang State University which related to this study.

There are also some theses of English Department of Post Graduate Program

of Semarang State University which related to this study: (1) Harsanti (2005) who

wrote “Code Switching in Uncle JC Happy Hour in 95,65 FM Jakarta: The

Public Interactive Communication”. Her research was aimed at investigating

code-switching in the radio interactive English program of Uncle JC Happy Hour

in 95,65 FM Jakarta. (2) “Novices’ Explaining Techniques: Code-Switching and

Code-Mixing in the Classroom” which was proposed by Mustadi (2005). His

research was conducted to explain to what extent do novices’ code-switch and

code-mix in the classroom, and also to explain about the reasons of novices of

IKIP PGRI Semarang code-switch and code-mix in the classroom, and to explain

how code-switching and code-mixing reflect a skill. (3) Sudar (2004) who

conducted research entitled “A Study of Code-Switching and Code-Mixing Made

by Senior High School English Teachers in Purworejo”. His research was

conducted to explain the reasons of English teachers code-switch or code-mix in

language classes of Senior High Schools. The language classes of Senior High
 13

Schools were chosen for there are some reasons for English teachers code-switch

or code-mix while they were teaching their students. Further the purpose set was

to know the English teachers’ reasons to code-switch or code-mix in language

classes. Then, whether code-switching or code-mixing reflect deficit or skill.

Furthermore, whether English teachers code-switch or code-mix in order to

maintain their teaching learning process to run smoothly or to achieve a particular

effect. (4) Udjianto (2005) who wrote “Code-Switching and Code-Mixing in a

Conversation of Pesantren Students: A Case Study in Pesantren Darul Qur’an

Kebumen”. His research, which was conducted in Pesantren Darul Qur’an

Kebumen, was aimed at finding the answers to the questions: (a) what language

varieties emerge from the conversation of the students and or what “foreign”

expressions are mixed into the varieties they have selected; (b) the purpose of

each of the utterances they have produced; (c) the reasons for producing those

varieties and or expressions; and (d) the effects the speakers expect on the hearer

when hearing those varieties and or expressions.

From some studies above, as an addition in the description of language

alternation of English, Indonesian, and Javanese called code-switching in

classroom context; I propose “Code-Switching Performed by Junior High School

Students in English Class: The Case of the First Year Students of SMP Negeri 1

Kragan, Kabupaten Rembang in the Academic Year of 2009/2010” as the title of

my own final project.

 14

2.2 Review of the Theoretical Studies

In order to study the use of code-switching in classroom context, especially

in English class of Junior High School; we should consider some aspects that

related to this study, they are: (1) language as a means of communication, (2)

code-switching in a bilingual or multilingual community context, (3) the types of

code-switching, (4) the possible factors causing code-switching, (5) the functions

of code-switching, (6) teaching English at Junior High School, (7) speaking

activities in English class, (8) the use of code-switching in English class, (9) the

functions of teachers’ code-switching, and (10) the functions of students’ code-

switching.

2.2.1 Language as a Means of Communication

Many animals are capable of using sounds to communicate, but only

humans who have created with the unique ability to employ speech for

communication. Moreover, Ramelan (1992: 8) proposes that; “… language is

something that only human beings possess in the world, and is a special

characteristic of ‘homo sapiens’, since only human beings speak language,

whereas other animals do not”. Thus, language is considered “as a criterion which

is used to identify human beings” (Ramelan 1992). Furthermore, as a social being,

one cannot be separated from other people since he or she needs each other.

Meanwhile, the cooperation between them is depend on communication, and

again; this in turn needs a means of communication called language, as stated by

Ramelan (1992) that; “with language man can express his ideas and wishes to
 15

other people such as when he needs their help so that close operation among

members of the group can be carried out”. Thus, the three elements mentioned

above: (1) “human beings”, (2) “community”, and (3) “language” (Ramelan 1992)

are very closely related and not easily divisible.

In addition about the characteristics of human language, Carrol (1953) in

Ramelan (1992: 10) states:

Language is an arbitrary system of speech sounds or sequences of

speech sounds which is used or can be used in interpersonal
communication by an aggregation of human beings, and which rather
exhaustively catalogs things, processes, and events in the human
environment.

Moreover, Finnochiaro (1974) in Sugestiningrum (2002: 6) cites that; “language

is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols that permit all people in a given culture, or

other people who have learned the system of that culture, to communicate or to

interact”. Also, Wardaugh (1976) in Sugestiningrum (2002: 6) states that;

“language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbol used for human communication”.

Based on these statements, language is said to be “an arbitrary system” (Carrol

1953, Finnochiaro 1974, and Wardaugh 1976) because; “it [language] is based on

social agreement” (Ramelan 1992: 11). In other words, there is “no logical

explanation” or “no reasoning” (Ramelan 1992) to explain or to describe this

characteristic. Supporting these ideas, besides “arbitrary”, Ramelan (1992: 10)

also proposes more elements about the characteristics of human language:

“systematic”, “spoken”, “social”, and “complete”.

As a means of communication, language also has devices, which allow

speakers to talk about themselves, to ask questions, to express and to organize

 16

their ideas; that make a different of communication between humans and animals.

Parallel with this, Raghunathan (2004: 1) argues that; “language is the

development of the basic form of communication between human beings, and in a

society”. Thus, as the basic form of communication among people, language is

also the most developed means through the civilization of human beings.

Moreover, Raghunathan (2004) proposes that; “we cannot communicate in any

real sense without language, other than through gestures; we do communicate

through some non-verbal forms like the visual arts - painting and sculpture - and

through dance, but the culmination of true, articulate, communication is through

language”. It means that language still becomes the most effective means of

communication, which allows speaker(s) in spoken language and writer(s) in

written language to deliver their ideas, opinions and feelings to other human

beings.

Based on these statements, we can draw a conclusion that “human language”

(Ramelan 1992: 10) is “an arbitrary system” (Carrol 1953, Finnochiaro 1974,

Ramelan 1992, and Wardaugh 1976), and although people can communicate

through some non-verbal forms, but language still becomes the most efficient and

acceptable means to communicate between human beings, and in every human

society in the world.

 17

2.2.2 Code-Switching in a Bilingual or Multilingual Community Context

It can be assumed that in a bilingual or even in a multilingual situation, the

two or more languages are always in contact. Based on Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia; “bilinguals, who can speak at least two languages, have the ability

to use elements of both languages when conversing with another bilingual”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication). It is clear enough that bilinguals

have the ability to use at least two languages within their conversation. Moreover,

Weinrich (1968) in Surati (2003: 8) cites that; “all remarks of bilingualism apply

as well as to multilingualism that is the practice of alternately using three or more

languages”. It means that bilingual even multilingual people cannot always stick

to only one language; they prefer to engage at least two or more languages

alternately within their conversations. The bilingualism or multilingualism

situation also has appeared in Indonesia, as cited by Nababan (1979: 10-11):

It is clear, however, that practically everybody is a bilingual in the

cities and towns of Indonesia, with the people speaking one vernacular
or local language (one’s first language or ‘mother tongue’) and
Indonesian. In many cases, people speak three Indonesian language,
sometimes with one or more foreign languages in addition (with the
older generation, the foreign language is often Dutch; with younger
people, it will more likely be English).

From the statement above, the vernaculars are used by Indonesian people for

“intra-group purposes”, while Indonesian is used for “inter-group

communication” (Nababan 1979: 12). Furthermore, Nababan (1979) explains that;

“Indonesian is to some extent also used for international communication, that is,

among Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei”, besides its functions as “the only

official language in Indonesia”. Nababan (1979) also proposes that; “English is

 18

the designated language for wider communication for the country [Indonesia]”.

Based on these statements, it is a common phenomenon in a bilingual even

multilingual community, as for Indonesian people; that if they use more than one

language in their daily conversations.

Further, a common linguistic phenomenon in a bilingual or multilingual

society: it is impossible for a bilingual or multilingual speaker to use one language

only and is not interfered by other language(s) which he or she has mastered. This

condition can emerge an interesting study of sociolinguistics which is called code-

switching. Based on Marasigan (1983: 1), “code-switching or code-choice …

refers to the use of two languages … in the same sentence or discourse”. Thus,

code-switching also can be seen as code-choice. Parallel with this, Ng and He

(2004: 29) also argue that; “code-switching (CS), the alternation between two (or

more) languages in conversations, has long existed as a result of language contact

and occurs commonly in bilingual settings”. From these statements, code-

switching can be used as the alternation of two or more languages, within

conversations in a bilingual even multilingual community. Then, we also can

analyze code-switching based on its terms, as McArthur (1998: 1) defines that; “a

CODE may be a language or a variety or style of a language; the term CODEMIXING

emphasizes hybridization, and the term CODE-SWITCHING emphasizes movement

from one language to another. Mixing and switching probably occur to some

extent in the speech of all bilinguals …” Based on McArthur (1998), code-mixing

and code-switching are quite different in its emphasis; although Sudar (2004: 2-3)

gives another definition; “code-switching or code-mixing is just what seems to be

 19

the act of switching between codes (languages) in a discourse”. If we deal with

Sudar (2004), so there is no difference in defining of code-switching and code-

mixing.

Furthermore, there are some definitions about code-switching that are given

by scientists: Skiba (1997: 2) proposes that; “code-switching is the alternation

between two codes (languages and/or dialects), between people who share those

particular codes”. Moreover, Li (2005: 40) also cites that; “code-switching means

a change by a speaker (or writer) from one language variety to another one”.

Code-switching also can be seen as a changing of language varieties, as explained

by Li (2005), “it [code-switching] can take place in a different language, a person

may start speaking one language and then change to another on in the middle of

their speech, or sometimes even in the middle of a sentence”. In addition about the

characteristics of code-switching; Wardhaugh (2000) in Li (2005: 40) also states

that; “people are usually required to select a particular code whenever they choose

to speak, they also decide to switch from one code to another or to mix codes even

within sometimes every utterance and thereby create a new code”. Based on these

statements, the term “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba

1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) implicitly includes language in its

meaning. Thus, “code-switching” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Ng

and He 2004, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) means switching

between languages. Hence, the term code-switching in this study refers to moving

from one language, variety of language, dialect or speech style: generally called

code, in the conversation among bilingual or even multilingual society. The

 20

switch may be a word, phrase, clause within a single sentence or utterance; or

sentences in a whole conversation or communication event.

2.2.3 The Types of Code-Switching

There are so many types of code-switching which are given by scientists;

those classifications can be used in order to notice code-switching’s occurring.

Further, this study only focuses on Gumperz (1971), Hammink (2000), Li (2005),

and McArthur (1998).

The first definition of the types of code-switching is given by Gumperz

(1971) in Li (2005: 40). He points out that there are two types of code switching:

(1) “situational code switching” and (2) “metaphorical code switching”. The

former: “situational code switching” (Gumperz 1971) is related to the speaker’s

experience; the latter: “metaphorical code switching” (Gumperz 1971) is related

to the situation.

Moreover, Hammink (2000) in Harsanti (2005: 10) also divides code-

switching into four types: (1) “borrowing”, (2) “calque”, (3) “intersentential”, and

(4) “intrasentential”. Supporting McArthur’s (1998) theory; Hammink (2000)

only substitutes the types of “tag-switching” and “intra-word switching”

(McArthur 1998) with “borrowing” and “calque”. Furthermore; Hammink (2000)

explains that the first type of code-switching: “borrowing”, occurs when the

speaker “used a word from another language which showed morphological/

phonological adaptation to the matrix language”. This type of code-switching can

be seen as an impact of the speaker’s lack of knowledge in choosing the

 21

appropriate “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar

2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used. Hammink (2000) also gives the example of

borrowing type:

Example : Va a imeilear a su vesino

(She is going to e-mail her neighbor)

From the model that is given above, the word “e-mail” is borrowed from English;

which becomes “imeilear”. Thus, the type of “borrowing” (Hammink 2000) also

can be used as the way to enrich a language vocabulary.

Whether for the second type of code-switching: “calque”, Hammink (2000)

states that; “calque is a literal translation of an expression from another language”.

It is an expression introduced into one language by translating it from another

language, as Hammink (2000) gives the example:

Example: Le voy a Ilamar para tras

(I’m going to call him back)

“Calque” (Hammink 2000) just represents as the loan translation from another

language. The other model of calque is represented by Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia: “superman” which is a calque for the German “Übermensch”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch).

The third type of code-switching is “intersentential” as cited by Hammink

(2000), intersentential is “switching at the sentence level which may serve to

emphasize a point made in the other language signal a switch in the conversation,

participants, indicate to whom the statement is addressed; or to provide a direct of

vote from, or reference to, from another conversation”.

Example: Y luego me dijo “don’t worry about it”

(And then he told me “don’t worry about it”)
 22

As the model above, “intersential” (Hammink 2000) is used to emphasize a point

and indicate to whom the statement is addressed. Besides these functions, it also

can be used to “quote” (Marasigan 1983) from another conversation.

Then the fourth type of code-switching is “intrasentential” (Hammink 2000);

intrasentential “switches at the clause, phrase level or at word level if no

morphological adaption occurs”. This last type is about the position which code-

switching occurs.

Example: Abelardo tieme los movie tickets

(Albelardo has the movie’s tickets)

Based on the model that is given, it seems that code-switching occurs at a clause

boundary. The type of “intrasentential” (Hammink 2000) usually occurs in

conversation within bilingual even multilingual community.

Another explanation about the types of code-switching is given by Li (2005:

40); he states that; “according to the definition of code switching, it mainly

includes three types: (1) ‘switching between different languages’, (2) ‘switching

between different dialects’, and (3) ‘switching from formal to informal’.” These

three types of code-switching by Li (2005) commonly cover the major types of

switching.

Based on McArthur (1998: 1), there are four types of switching: (1) “tag-

switching”, (2) “intra-sentential switching”, (3) “inter-sentential switching”, and

(4) “intra-word switching”. Moreover, McArthur (1998) explains that the first

type: “tag-switching, in which tags and certain set phrases in one language are

inserted into an utterance otherwise in another”. McArthur (1998) cites the

utterance of a Panjabi/English bilingual as the example of “tag-switching”:

 23

IT'S A NICE DAY, HANA? (HAI NĀ ISN'T IT).

Based on this characteristic of “tag-switching” (McArthur 1998), code-switching

can occur in tag-position, in order to make an utterance becomes a tag-question.

The second type is about “intra-sentential switching”, as McArthur (1998)

cites that; “intra-sentential switching, in which switches occur within a clause or

sentence boundary”. The utterance of Yoruba/English bilingual as the example of

“intra-sentential switching” (McArthur 1998):

WON O ARREST A SINGLE PERSON (WON O they did not).

Parallel this idea is Hammink (2000); that intrasentential “switches at the clause,

phrase level or at word level if no morphological adaption occurs”. This type of

code-switching: “intrasentential” (Hammink 2000, McArthur 1998) is usually

used by bilingual even multilingual speakers.

Next, McArthur (1998) gives an explanation about the third type: “inter-

sentential switching; in which a change of language occurs at a clause or sentence

boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one language or the other”.

McArthur (1998) also gives the utterance of a Spanish/English, as the example of

“inter-sentential”:

SOMETIMES I'LL START A SENTENCE IN ENGLISH Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL (and finish

it in Spanish).

This type of code-switching occurs at a clause boundary. Based on Hammink

(2000) “intersential” is also used to emphasize a point and indicate to whom the

statement is addressed. As the model that is given above, the first code of sentence

is in English and then switched into Spanish; because the speaker wants to

emphasize that he or she is also able to speak in Spanish.

 24

Finally, the last type of code-switching by McArthur (1998) is “intra-word

switching”, as he describes that; “in which a change occurs within a word

boundary”. Moreover, McArthur (1998) gives the example of “intra-word

switching”:

SHOPPÃ (English SHOP with the Panjabi plural ending) or

KUENJOY (English ENJOY with the Swahili prefix ku, meaning ‘to’).

The model above is the use of code-switching as “affixes”: the first is “suffix” and

the latter is “prefix” (Ramelan 1992). Moreover, Ramelan (1992: 58-59) proposes

that; “certain bound morphemes are known as affixes (reflecting the fact that they

must be attached, or ‘affixed’, to other morphemes)”. Further, he also explains

that; “affixes are referred to as prefixes when they are attached to the beginning of

another morpheme (like the prefix re- in words such as redo, rewrite, rethink) and

as suffixes when they are attached to the end of another morpheme (like the suffix

–ize in words such as modernize, equalize, centralize)”. Certain language, but not

English: as Indonesian, also have affixes known as “infixes” (Ramelan 1992),

which are attached “within another morpheme, for example [in Sundanese: one of

Indonesian local languages], taking the word kayu, meaning ‘wood’, one can

insert the infix –in– immediately after the first consonant k to form the word

kinayu, meaning ‘gathered wood’.” The type of “intra-word switching”

(McArthur 1998) then deals with its function as “affixes” (Ramelan 1992).

Parallel with McArthur’s (1998) theory, the types of code-switching are also

given by Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: (1) “intersentential switching”, (2)

“intra-sentential switching”, (3) “tag-switching”, and (4) “intra-word switching”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching).
 25

From those definitions above, it seems that Gumperz (1971) and Li (2005)

only focus on macro-forms of switching rather than to analyze the occurring of

switching from its positions; as Hammink (2000) and McArthur (1998) do.

2.2.4 The Possible Factors Causing Code-Switching

There are a number of reasons to switch from one language to another;

further, this study only refers to the possible factors causing code-switching by

Hymes (1969), Marasigan (1983), and Skiba (1997).

According to Hymes (1969) in Surati (2003: 15-22), the possible factors

causing code-switching can be classified into several points: (1) “situation”, (2)

“participants”, (3) “ends”, (4) “art-sequence”, (5) “key”, (6) “instrumentalities”,

(7) “norm”, and (8) “genre”. The first factor causing code-switching: “situation”;

Hymes (1969) describes that; “situation is composed of the ‘setting’ and ‘scene’.”

Moreover, the term of “setting” is about “the ‘physical circumstance’ of the

communicative event, including the time and place”, and “scene” refers to “the

abstract ‘psychological setting’: what kind of speech event is taking place

according to cultural and psychological definition”. Furthermore, Hymes (1969)

also explains that; “the different time, place and situation can result a different use

of language”. The example of “situation” is also given by Hymes (1969):

“Speaking in a stadium where the football game is taking place and in a noisy

situation, is different to the speaking in a library where there are many people

reading or studying”. Based on the sample that is given, it can be concluded that

the “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004,
 26

and Wardhaugh 2000) used by the participants is relied on the “situation” (Hymes

1969) of conversation.

The second factor causing code-switching: “participants” (Hymes 1969);

participants deal with “the people in the communicative event, including various

combination of speaker-listener, addressor-addressee, or sender-receiver”. In more

detail, Hymes (1969) gives the example about “participant”: “A two person

conversation involves speaker and listener whose roles can change; a political

speech involves and addressor and addresses (the audience); and a telephone

conversation [mailbox] involves a sender and a receiver”. Thus, “participants”

(Hymes 1969) become the most important element of a conversation which will

decide the kind of conversation and how the conversation will be.

The third factor causing code-switching: “ends” (Hymes 1969); ends are

related to “the language function and the purpose of conversation”. According to

Hymes (1969), “the end of speech event can be divided into outcomes (the

purpose of the event from the cultural point of view) and goals (the purpose of the

individual participants)”. For illustration, Hymes (1969) gives the example of

“ends”: “In a bargaining event, the overall outcome is to be the orderly exchange

something of value from one person to the other. While, the goal of the seller, of

course, is to maximize the price; the buyer wants to minimize it”. From the model

that is given, it seems that ends are depend on the purpose of event: “outcomes”

(Hymes 1969) which is then followed by the purpose of individual participants:

“goals” (Hymes 1969).

 27

The forth factor causing code-switching: “act-sequence” (Hymes 1969)

refers to “message form and content”. Moreover, Hymes (1969) explains that;

“message form deals with the price word used, how they are used and the

relationship of what is said with the actual topic”, while “content means what is

said, what topic is talked about in the communication event”. As the example that

is given by Hymes (1969): “A lecturer, a casual conversation and a barbeque party

chatter are all different form of speaking, with different kind of languages and

things talked about”. In a real communication, “message form and content”

(Hymes 1969) may always change because many reasons and they also can

influence the change of language used.

The fifth factor causing code-switching: “key” (Hymes 1969) refers to “the

tone, manner or spirit in which particular message is conveyed: light-hearted,

serious, casual, pedantic, mocking, sarcastic or others”. The “key” may also be

marked “non-verbally”, as Hymes (1969) gives the example: “When a person is

speaking while pointing his finger to the interlocutors, it can show impoliteness”.

Thus, the “key” (Hymes 1969) can also be seen as styles which affect the degree

of conversation.

The sixth factor causing code-switching: “instrumentalities” (Hymes 1969)

which include: “channel and form of speech”. Based on Hymes (1969), “channel

is the way a message travels from one person to another”, while “form of speech

includes language and their subdivisions, dialect, codes, varieties and registers

chosen in communication”. Hymes (1969) gives the example of the channel which

determines the form of speech: “The language used in telephoning will be

 28

different to the language in face-to-face interaction”. In this case, the way a

message: “channel” (Hymes 1969) travels; will give an impact to the form of

speech.

The seventh factor causing code-switching: “norms” (Hymes 1969) which

include: “interaction and interpretation norms”. Moreover, Hymes (1969) explains

that; “interaction norm deals with what is permitted to do in communication and

what is not”. In other words, “interpretation norm is more or less what is meant

by expression ‘reading between the lines’; it involves trying to understand what is

being conveyed beyond what are the actual words used”. Further, Hymes (1969)

argues that; “the norm of interaction and interpretation cannot be separated the

culture, belief and situation of the society”. Thus, these norms vary between social

groups.

The eight factor causing code-switching: “genre” (Hymes 1969) which

refers to “clearly demarcated types of utterance; such as poems, riddles, proverbs,

lectures, prayers, etc.” Hymes (1969) describes that; “the language of speech will

be different to the language of telling stories or having a chat”. It means that the

difference in “genre” (Hymes 1969) also will differ the use of language or “code”

(Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and

Wardhaugh 2000).

Further, Marasigan (1983: 39) also mentions the social factors of language

variation: (1) “role relationships between speakers and addressee”, (2) “topics”,

(3) “situation”, (4) “domain”, and (5) “setting”. The first type of language

variation: “role relationships between speakers and addressee” (Marasigan 1983),

 29

as explained by Goodenough (1963) in Marasigan (1983: 39); “as social identity,

[role relationships] may be characterized by the dimensions of status and

solidarity”. Supporting Goodenough (1963), Marasigan (1983) also proposes that;

“status may be defined by relative sex, relative caste or class, relative professional

ranking and relative age, while solidarity may be defined according to the relative

intimacy between the speaker and the addressee”. Thus, in role relationships

between speakers and addressee, the two of social aspects: “status” and

“solidarity” (Goodenough 1963, Marasigan 1983) also give an important

influence in choosing the “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998,

Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used within conversation.

The second type of language variation: “topics”, as stated by Marasigan

(1983: 40) that; “… the topic under discussion may be a determinant of linguistic

behavior”. Moreover, Ervin and Tripp (1964) in Marasigan (1983: 40) also

propose that; “topic may be construed – it may include not only categories such as

subject matter but also propositional content of utterances”. Usually, there is more

than one topic within a conversation which makes the “participants” (Hymes

1969) switch their “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997,

Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000).

The third type of language variation: “situation” (Marasigan 1983). Bock

(1964) in Marasigan (1983: 40) argues about a dimension situation which

“combines three variables: time, place and roles”. He also gives the example: “one

type of cultural situational might be a class, which usually takes place during class

time in a school with roles of teacher and pupil”. When those three variables: (1)
 30

“time”, (2) “place” and (3) “roles” (Bock 1964) come together in a regular way, as

cited by Fishman (1965) in Marasigan (1983: 40); “they may be reflected in

certain language usage norms”. So, “situation” (Marasigan 1983) needs these

three variables: (1) “time”, (2) “place” and (3) “roles” (Bock 1964) in order to

make code-switching occurs.

The forth type of language variation: “domain” (Marasigan 1983), further

Fishman (1965) in Marasigan (1983: 40) sees domain as “a cluster of social

situations which are typically constrained by a common set of behavioral rules”

and “which in any community is associated with particular variety”. Thus, a social

group or community may contribute the use of code-switching among of

members.

The fifth type of language variation: “setting”, as cited by Marasigan (1983);

“setting includes both the time and the place of interaction”. Based on this

statement, time and place also cause switch the “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983,

McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) used within

conversation.

Skiba (1997: 2) also gives his theory for the possible factors causing code-

switching: (1) “the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or herself

in one language”, (2) “switching commonly occurs when an individual wishes to

express solidarity with a particular social group”, and (3) “the alteration that

occurs when the speaker wishes to convey his or her attitude to the listener”. For

the first possible factor causing code-switching: “the notion that a speaker may

not be able to express him or herself in one language” (Skiba 1997), in this case;
 31

Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 1-2) argues that; “the speaker may be triggered

into speaking in the other language for a while”, further; he also cites that; “this

type of code switching [“the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him

or herself in one language” (Skiba 1997)] tends to occur when the speaker is

upset, tired or distracted in some manner”. Thus, in this type; code-switching

becomes the way to compensate for the speakers’ deficiency. Parallel with

Crystal (1987), Skiba (1997) also deals that; “code switching is not a language

interference on the basis that it supplements speech”. Where code switching is

used due to an inability of expression, as proposed by Skiba (1997), “code

switching provides a continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in

language”. Based on these statements, the first type of the possible factors causing

code-switching: “the notion that a speaker may not be able to express him or

herself in one language” (Skiba 1997), shows that code-switching is not a deficit

of speaker’s knowledge, but a means which “provides a continuity in speech”

(Skiba 1997).

The second possible factor causing code-switching: “to express solidarity

with a particular social group” (Skiba 1997), further; he states that; “the socio-

linguistic benefits have also been identified as a means of communicating

solidarity, or affiliation to a particular social group, whereby code switching

should be viewed from the perspective of providing a linguistic advantage rather

than an obstruction to communication”. Although, in the other hands, Crystal

(1987) in Skiba (1997: 2) also proposes that; “this type of switching [“to express

solidarity with a particular social group” (Skiba 1997)] may also be used to
 32

exclude others from a conversation who do not speak the second language”.

Moreover, Crystal (1987) gives the example of such a situation: “… two people in

an elevator in a language other than English. Others in the elevator who do not

speak the same language would be excluded from the conversation and a degree

of comfort would exist amongst the speakers in the knowledge that not all those

present in the elevator are listening to their conversation”. Thus, parallel with

these statements, in order to make a communication becomes acceptable within a

social community of bilingual or multilingual; code-switching serves a device to

fulfill these needs.

Further, the third possible factor causing code-switching: “the alteration that

occurs when the speaker wishes to convey his or her attitude to the listener”

(Skiba 1997). It means that code-switching allows bilingual even multilingual

speakers to convey their attitude to listeners, this is like where monolingual

speakers can communicate these attitudes by means of variation in the level of

formality in their speech; bilingual even multilingual speakers can convey the

same by code switching; as Skiba (1997) tries to describe that; “code switching

allows a speaker to convey attitude and other emotives using a method available

to those who are bilingual and again serves to advantage the speaker, much like

bolding or underlining in a text document to emphasise points”. Moreover, Skiba

(1997) explains that by “utilising the second language, then, allows speakers to

increase the impact of their speech and use it in an effective manner”. Thus, a

speaker can also emphasize his or her meanings to listeners by using code-

switching, as a writer does by bolding or underlining in his or her text document

 33

to emphasize points; code-switching is the appropriate choice for a bilingual even

multilingual speaker to convey these attitudes or emotives.

From those discussions above, code-switching occurs because of the social

factors (Hymes 1969, Marasigan 1983, and Skiba 1997) of bilingual even

multilingual communities that influence the speaker; code-switching also

“provides a continuity in speech rather than presenting an interference in

language” (Skiba 1997).

2.2.5 The Functions of Code-Switching

Basically, people communicate in order to deliver their “ideas and wishes to

other people such as when he needs their help” (Ramelan 1992). Parallel with this,

based on Li (2005: 40), “people may employ different kinds of code switching for

different purposes”. Here are some functions of code-switching that presented by

some scientists: Grosjean (1982), Marasigan (1983), and Scotton (1979).

The first definitions of the functions of code-switching are given by

Grosjean (1982) in Harsanti (2005: 19):

(1) “Speaker prefers to use the most available word than to find similar

expression in proper language” (Grosjean 1982). Supporting this idea is

Marasigan (1983) with “facility of expression”. It seems that code-switching

is not a deficit of speaker’s knowledge, but a means which “provides a

continuity in speech” (Skiba 1997).

(2) “Speaker will keep using the new code since it will trigger him thus the

continuation of sentence may stay in the new code” (Grosjean 1982). This
 34

second function of code-switching happens consciously by the speaker;

because he or she consciously chooses the “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan

1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) that

used.

(3) “Speaker has something to emphasize by mentioning certain words into

certain intonation and showing facial expression” (Grosjean 1982). Parallel

with this is Marasigan (1983) with “interjection”; it is used to emphasize an

important point within conversation.

(4) “Speaker quotes someone’s saying” (Grosjean 1982). Marasigan (1983) also

deals this function with “quotations”; quotations serve a proof that what the

speaker’s saying are facts so that the addressees have to believe him or her.

(5) “Speaker marks and shows his group identity” (Grosjean 1982). This function

deals with Skiba (1997); that switching commonly occurs when an

individual wishes “to express solidarity with a particular social group”.

(6) “Speaker has a sense of humor” (Grosjean 1982). Of course, this function is

depend on the characteristic of each individual; there is no pattern in

qualifying “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur 1998, Skiba 1997,

Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000) which includes as a humor or not.

(7) “Speaker excludes someone, or when a third person enters the room, or if the

location of the interaction changes” (Grosjean 1982). This function deals

with Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 2); “code-switching is used when

speaker wants to exclude someone within a conversation”.

 35

(8) “Speaker wants to show the audience that he is able to use or speak in other

languages” (Grosjean 1982). For this last function, again this is a conscious

act of the speaker that he or she wants to show his or her ability in mastering

some languages.

Another functions of code-switching are also proposed by Marasigan (1983:

120): (1) “quotation”, (2) “interjection”, (3) “repetition”, (4) “addressee

specification”, (5) “message qualification”, (6) “personalization and

objectification” and (7) “facility of expression”. The first function of code-

switching: “quotations” which according to Marasigan (1983: 73), “subjects

quoted themselves and others directly or indirectly to sound more credible to the

addressees”. By quoting, perhaps the addressees will believe what the speaker

said. Moreover, Marasigan (1983) proposes that; “a quotation served as a proof

that what they were saying were facts and that the addressees had to believe

them”. Quoting also persuades the addressees that what the speaker said is a fact.

Marasigan (1983: 75) also states that; “… the subjects switched codes to preserve

the originality of the message”. Quoting is also used to preserve the originality of

the message, rather than only to provide a persuasion, as explained by Marasigan

(1983) that; “to avoid any distortion in the meaning of the message, the speakers

decide to use the language in which the message was originally stated”.

Sometimes the speaker is hard to deliver his or her ideas, because of an ambiguity

of language he or she used; quoting is the most appropriate way to avoid the

ambiguity. Marasigan (1983: 76) gives the example of the situation where the

Filipino speaker expressed his idea of a good student by “quotation”:

 36

Sabi nga e (as they say), “Honesty is the best policy.”

Actually, the Filipino speaker could have restated the quotation in Pilipino to

convey the same message; but perhaps he felt that the message, which was

originally said in English, would not have the same impact on the addressees if he

had been translated to Pilipino.

The second function of code-switching: “interjection” (Marasigan 1983: 81).

The function of interjection based on Marasigan (1983) is “to express strong

feelings or emotions”. Interjection is used much like bolding or underlining in a

text document to emphasise points. Marasigan (1983) also notices that, for

Filipinos – as the example; “Pilipino expressions describe Filipino emotions very

well … and the feelings could have been insipidly expressed in English”. Parallel

with this, Indonesian or native languages, also expressions describe Indonesian

emotions very well rather than any foreign languages. Marasigan (1983: 82) gives

the situation of “interjection”, where the subject: as a Filipino father, shared with

the readers his problems – financial problem:

(1) I don’t know kung paano pa ang gagawin kung pagkayod (how
hard I still have to work). (2) You see, schooldays na naman,
matriculation, allowences and miscellaneous ang iniintindi ko (it’s
schooldays again and I have to attend to many things like
matriculation fees, daily allowance for my children and many other
‘miscellaneous’ expenses.) (3) My wife helps me also in budgeting,
but parang palaging kulang (but the money we earn does not seem
enough for our expenses.) (4) Laki talaga ng gastos nyagon ng
schooling (school expenses have indeed increased), from my kinder up
to 5th grade, oh heaven!

Marasigan (1983: 82) also explains that; “concepts such as ‘fifth grade’,

‘matriculation’, ‘school supplies’ etc. can be better expressed and understood in

English than in Pilipino. Nevertheless, the complaints were in Pilipino …” As

 37

Indonesian comments of football match, the terms such: offside, sliding, hand, etc.

can be better understood in English than in Indonesian, while the comments are in

Indonesian; because it can express strong feelings or emotions of Indonesian.

The third function of code-switching: “repetition” Marasigan (1983: 79), as

she mentions that; “repetition may serve to clarify what is said, amplify or

emphasize a message, or mark a joke”. So, the use of repetition actually is depend

on the context itself. The conversation below is the example of “repetition” that is

given by Marasigan (1983); where the first speaker (A) felt uncomfortable in the

car because of the position of the second speaker’s (B’s) legs:

A :
Ate Christy, you stretch your legs.
B :
Ano (what)?
A :
I said, “You stretch your leg.”
B :
Ano (what)?
C :
Darling, magtagalog ka (Darling, speak Tagalog). Ate Christy
does not understand English.
A : Ah! Ate Christy, i–stretch mo ang legs mo.
C : (Laughing) Sabi ko (I said), “You speak in Tagalong” Tagalong
bay an (Is that Tagalog)?
A : Oo, sabi ko naman i–stretch nya ang legs nya, ah (Yes, I told
her to stretch her legs).

The conversation above was considered by Marasigan (1983) as “a form of

repetition rather than quotation although the speakers (A and C) practically quoted

themselves”. Moreover she explains that it is because “the span of time between

the original and the repeated message was very short … both the original and the

repeated message were contained in the text”. Marasigan (1983) also explains that

in quotations; “the original message has been uttered by the speakers a long time

ago and they are just recalling them aloud”. From the model above we can see that

the first speaker (A) repeated the same message when he thought that the second
 38

speaker (B) did not understand him and failed to follow his instruction. In the

second repetition, he thought that the second speaker could not hear very well and

so get intention in repeating his message was to heard rather than to be

understood. Maybe in this case, the first speaker (A) presumed that the second

speaker (B) could understand English and therefore, there no need for her to

repeat what she said in the other “code” (Li 2005, Marasigan 1983, McArthur

1998, Skiba 1997, Sudar 2004, and Wardhaugh 2000).

The forth function of code-switching: “addressee specification”, as cited by

(Marasigan 1983: 76); “… the switch serves to direct the message to a specific

person”. It means that code-switching is used to personalize the message to be

delivered. Moreover, Marasigan (1983) argues that; “this type of switching

[addressee specification] recognizes not only the interacting members of the

speech events but it also recognizes that their language behavior may be more

than merely a matter of individual preference or facility, but also a matter of role

relations”. Besides its function as an individual preference of facility, “addressee

specification” (Marasigan 1983) also indicates a matter of role relations within

conversation. Furthermore, Marasigan (1983: 77) gives the conversation of a

Filipino student who reported to his teacher that two of his classmates were

quarrelling – as the example of “addressee specification”:

C : Miss, o, fighting again the two.

D : (Teacher): Sinong nag-aaway (Who are quarrelling)?
C : The two, Miss.
E : Away ng away (always quarrelling).
C : Oo, seatmates pa naman! (yes, and they are seatmates, too!)
 39

Marasigan (1983) also explains that; “in some schools in the Philippines the

language of communication between teachers and students is English. The use of

English does not only indicate the difference between their roles but it also

encourages the students to speak the language they learn in school”.

Unfortunately, this case is not found in Indonesia; maybe only few of schools in

Indonesia that apply English as the language of daily communication. Most of

schools in Indonesia only use Indonesian as the daily-official language between

teachers and students. Further, Marasigan (1983) tries to analyze the conversation

above; “the boy (C) used English when he reported to his teacher that two of his

classmates were quarrelling. He used the same code to answer the question of the

teacher. He switched to Mix-mix (a Pilipino based sentence with only one English

word substitution) when he talked to his classmate E”. From the model that is

given above; we can conclude that “addressee specification” (Marasigan 1983) is

not only as an individual preference of facility, but it also indicates a matter of

role relations within conversation.

The fifth function of code-switching: “message qualification” (Marasigan

1983: 83). The aim of switching under this category served mainly, as cited by

Marasigan (1983: 84), is “to qualify a previous message which the speaker

believed would be better understood in the other code”. Message qualification can

be used in order to evaluate whether the addresses understand or do not with the

message that is given. Marasigan (1983: 65) gives the example of “message

qualification”; the play director (A) was distributing the scripts to the participants

of a coming school play:

 40

A : So this is your role.

B : Bakit naman ekstra (Why did you give me a very unimportant
role).
A : What I mean the role, Kung gaano kahaba (how long it will be).
B : I will appear … ah … three …
A : Pero maganda (but it’s beautiful).

Moreover, Marasigan (1983: 84) tries to give explanation of the conversation

above; “the addressee B failed to understand the message of the speaker A which

was said in English”. Further, she explains that; “the speaker [A], then, felt the

necessity to switch to Pilipino. However, the speaker (as the director of the school

play) seemed unwilling to take the risk of being misunderstood again, so he

switched to Pilipino to explain what he meant by ‘role’.” In the model which is

given, Marasigan (1983) notices that; “the impatience in his [the speaker A’s] tone

when he said kung gaano kahaba (how long your role will be) could be

paraphrased as “This is what I mean by role. It’s simple, why can’t you

understand me?” Then code-switching: as “message qualification” (Marasigan

1983), moreover, can be used to check the understanding of the message that is

given. Marasigan (1983: 85) also mentions that; “in other cases, the switched

passages [switches as message qualification] were meant to amplify or emphasize

a message”. For the second function of “message qualification” (Marasigan 1983),

it not only can be used in order to evaluate but also to emphasize a message.

Marasigan (1983: 85) also gives a composition of a Filipino grade six girl about

her friends as the example of this second function of message qualification; as a

means “to amplify or emphasize a message”:

Sila’y laging magkakasama (They always together) anywhere they go.

 41

Marasigan (1983) explains that; “in Philippines, schoolmates, even if they are

friends, normally enjoy each other’s company only in the school campus among

the subject’s friends”. But in the model that is given, it can be seen that they were

always together not only in, but also outside the school campus. This was what the

writer wanted to point out when she switched to English; that their group was

different, so she described it in another language.

The sixth function of code-switching: “personalization and objectivization”

(Marasigan 1983: 85), as she states that; “the code contrast here seems to relate to

such things as: the degree of speaker involvement in, or distance form, a message

or an addressee; whether a statement reflects personal opinion, feeling or

knowledge; whether it refers to specific instances, or whether it has the status of

generally known fact”. Thus, the functions of “personalization and

objectivization” (Marasigan 1983) are divided into: “objective marks that the

speaker gives about the fact” and “subjective argument from the speaker as

personalize marks”. Moreover, Marasigan (1983: 86) cites about the coming

basketball game between two of the Philippines’ most popular basketball team –

Crispa and Toyota, as the example of “personalization and objectivization”:

It’s a Crispa-Toyota deal. I’m one of the Crispa die-hard fans.

Sana manalo sila (I hope they win).

Further, Marasigan (1983: 86) explains that; “the subject used English to express

what to him were objective facts. He switched to Pilipino to express a personal

wish. Here the subject was not only stating a message. He was expressing his

involvement in it. He would want his favorite team to win and would certainly be

disappointed if it did not”. From the model that is given, it seems that English is
 42

only used when the speaker wants to deliver the fact, in the other hands, the first

language; in this case is Pilipino, is used when the speaker want to argue

something.

The seventh function of code-switching: “facility of expression” (Marasigan

1983: 90). Based on Gumperz and Hernandez (1971) in Marasigan (1983: 80);

“not all instances of code alternation convey meaning”. Moreover, Marasigan

(1983: 90) proposes that facility of expression is a function “where the shift …

can only be interpreted as difficulty in finding the right words at the time of

speaking or writing or merely as a sign of the subject’s lack of familiarity with the

style he is using”. This function of code-switching is used due to an inability of

expression; “code-switching provides a continuity in speech” (Skiba 1997).

Marasigan (1983: 91) gives the composition written by a grade six girl as the

example of switching for “facility of expression”:

My barkada’s are Andrea, Maricris and Lora (My friends are…) They
are minsan pikon and minsan good (They are sometimes unable to
take jokes and sometimes good). We always together, sometimes
nagkakaroon kami ng misunderstanding at madalas kaming mag-
away (we sometimes misunderstand each other and we quarrel often)
…

In addition, Marasigan (1983: 92) also explains that; “Filipinos, in general, switch

code for facility of expression (in addition to the six functions previously

discussed)”. Parallel with this, most of Indonesian people also use code-switching

in order to facility their lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, according to Scotton (1979) in Surati (2003: 13-14), there are

also four main reasons for the use of code-switching:

 43

(1) “Lack of knowledge of one language or lack of facility in that language or

certain subject” (Scotton 1979). This first function deals with Grosjean

(1982) that; “speaker prefers to use the most available word than to find

similar expression in proper language” and Marasigan (1983) with “facility

of expression”. Moreover, Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 23) state

that; “contrary to the assumption that code-switching is evidence of

linguistic deficit in bilingual speakers, the sequential analysis suggests that

code-switching is used as an additional resource to achieve particular

conversational goals in interactions with other bilingual speakers”. Again,

this function happens as means to facility the speaker’s lack of knowledge.

(2) “To exclude certain person present from the portion of the conversation”

(Scotton 1979). This statement deals with Crystal (1987) in Skiba (1997: 2)

who also states that; “code-switching may also be used to exclude others

from a conversation who do not speak the second language”. Further,

Grosjean (1982) also proposes that; “speaker excludes someone, or when a

third person enters the room, or if the location of the interaction changes”.

Thus, sometimes code-switching is used when the speaker wants to

eliminate someone from the conversation.

(3) “As a stylistic device to indicate a change in the ‘tone’ of conversation at a

certain point or to signal the introduction of a subject more or less formal

than what had been under discussion” (Scotton 1979). Moreover, Grosjean

(1982) also argues that; “speaker has something to emphasize by

mentioning certain words into certain intonation and showing facial

 44

expression”. Parallel with this is Marasigan (1983) with “interjection”; it is

used to emphasize an important point within conversation. Also in this

path, Ng and He (2004: 29) who try to explain that; “… CS [code-

switching] may serve to translate, clarify, elaborate, or emphasize a message

that has been previously expressed in another language”. Based on these

statements, this third function of code-switching by Scotton (1979) can be

seen as a means to emphasize or signal an important point within

conversation.

(4) “As an attempt to impress another with his virtuosity in several languages or

at least one prestige language” (Scotton 1979). Supporting this idea,

Grosjean (1982) also argues that; “speaker wants to show the audience that

he is able to use or speak in other languages”. Thus, this last function is used

to show the speaker’s ability in mastering several languages.

From those statements; Grosjean (1982), Marasigan (1983), and Scotton (1979)

have the same definitions in classifying the functions of code-switching, they are:

“facility of expression” or “lack of knowledge of one language” (Grosjean 1982,

Marasigan 1983, Scotton 1979); “interjection” or “speaker has something to

emphasize” (Grosjean 1982, Marasigan 1983, Scotton 1979); “to exclude certain

person present from the portion of the conversation” (Grosjean 1982, Scotton

1979); “quotation” or “speaker quotes someone’s saying” (Grosjean 1982,

Marasigan 1983); and “as an attempt to impress another with his virtuosity in

several languages” (Grosjean 1982, Scotton 1979). Thus it can be concluded that

if code-switching styles served as functioning communicative systems.

 45

2.2.6 Teaching English at Junior High School

During English class, ideally; everyone who follows this class should speak

in English from the beginning until the class is over. But, it will be quite different

if we teach English in bilingual even multilingual countries. Hence, in order to

teach English at Junior High Schools in Asia, especially in Indonesia; an English

teacher must have knowledge about their bilingual even multilingual students.

Based on Harmer (2007: 11-20), an English teacher should know about: (1)

“reasons for learning, (2) different contexts for learning, and (3) learner

differences” of his or her students.

2.2.6.1 Reasons for Learning

In the reasons for learning, Harmer (2007: 11) cites that; “all around the

world, students of all ages are learning to speak English, but their reasons for

wanting to study English can differ greatly”. It seems that, each student has their

own purpose in order to study English as their choice. Then it becomes a job for

an English teacher to serve appropriate learning activities.

Moreover, Harmer (2007) suggests that; “some students, of course, only

learn English because it is on the curriculum at primary or secondary level, but for

others, studying the language reflects some kind of a choice”. For students of

Junior High School in Indonesia, although not all of them, it seems that most of

them only learn English because it is on the curriculum. In addition, Harmer

(2007) also mentions the reasons for learning:

 46

(1) “Many people learn English because they have moved into a target-language

community and they need to be able to operate successfully within that

community” (Harmer 2007). Based on Harmer (2007: 283), “a target-

language community” is “a place where English is the national language –

e.g. Britain, Canada, New Zealand, etc – or where it is one of the main

languages of culture and commerce – e.g. India, Pakistan, Nigeria”. In this

case, English is needed as learners’ second language as they live in a target

language community.

(2) “Some students need English for a Specific Purpose (ESP)”, further, ESP

also called with “English for Special Purpose” (Harmer 2007: 11). Some

students of ESP want and need to learn “legal language, or the language of

tourism, banking or nursing” (Harmer 2007), for example. This second type

is rather same with the previous; the difference comes from the needs itself.

The purpose of the first type is because of the demand from a target

language community, while the latter is absolutely because of learners’

wish.

(3) “Many people learn English because they think it will be useful in some way

for international communication and travel” (Harmer 2007). Students who

are included in this group usually called with the students of “general

English” (Harmer 2007). Moreover, Harmer (2007) proposes that; “such

students of general English often do not have a particular reason for going to

English classes, but simply wish to learn to speak (and read and write) the

language effectively for wherever and whenever this might be useful for
 47

them”. Based on the criteria that Harmer (2007) mentions above; it seems

that students of Junior High School in Indonesia (although not all of them)

are included in the type of the students of “general English” (Harmer 2007).

Thus, an English teacher should consider the reasons for learning from his or her

students. As proposed by Harmer (2007), “the purposes students have for learning

will have an effect on what it is they want and need to learn – and as a result will

influence what they are taught”. Therefore, as knowing the reasons for learning

from his or her students; an English teacher can decide which the most

appropriate method to teach English.

2.2.6.2 Different Contexts for Learning

In the different contexts for learning, as cited by Harmer (2007: 12), there is

“a distinction between people who study English as a foreign language and those

who study it as a second language or other language”. Parallel with Harmer

(2007), Paul (2003: 1) also proposes that; “one of the most important distinctions

to be aware of is that between ESL and EFL”. Thus, in order to make these

distinctions become easier to be studied; this study divides the different contexts

for learning into two particular groups: (1) “English as a Foreign Language

learners”, and (2) “English as a Second Language learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul

2003). Henceforth, they are called with “EFL learners” and “ESL learners”

(Harmer 2007, Paul 2003).

Based on Paul (2003: 1), the term of ESL refers to “the learning of English

by immigrants to a country where English is the native language”, as he gives the

 48

example of ESL: “A Korean child who has moved to Australia with her family is

an ESL learner in her English class”; while for EFL; Paul (2003) argues that;

“EFL as the learning of English by students in a country where English is not the

native language”. Thus, the condition of EFL is like in Indonesia; where learners

study English as the foreign language rather than as the second language.

Parallel with Paul (2003), Harmer (2007: 12) suggests that; “EFL learners

tend to be learning so that they can use English when travelling or to

communicate with other people, from whatever country, who also speak English”.

Whether for “ESL learners”, Harmer (2007) states; “on the other hand, [ESL

learners] are usually living in the target-language community”. Moreover, the

group of EFL is usually called as “general English” (Harmer 2007), that is

because “EFL learners” only study English in order to be able to communicate

with others who also speak English, further; “EFL learners often do not have a

particular reason for going to English classes, but simply wish to learn to speak

(and read and write) the language effectively for wherever and whenever this

might be useful for them” (Harmer 2007). In studying English, the situation of

“general English” (Harmer 2007) is also parallel with Indonesian learners;

although not all of them do.

Moreover, Paul (2003: 1) also argues that; “ESL learners generally have

more chances to use English naturally outside class, such as while playing with

their friends, shopping, or surviving in daily life”. It is true that “ESL learners”

(Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) have a lot of chances to practice their English

effectively because they live in a “target-language community” (Harmer 2007).

 49

Moreover, Paul (2003) gives the example of the situation of ESL: “They [ESL

learners] are also likely to have much more exposure to English, such as when

watching TV or just hearing conversations around them. In general, they are more

likely to deeply understand the importance of English and feel it is natural and

necessary to learn it”. From the model that is given, we can see that “EFL

learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) easily study and practice their English

effectively in their daily life because their environment: the “target-language

community” (Harmer 2007) which always supports them to do it.

Furthermore, Paul (2003: 1-2) also tries to give a description about EFL

learners; “EFL learners, on the other hand, rarely feel it is either natural or

necessary to learn English”. The environment of “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007,

Paul 2003) is quite different with ESL learners’. The “general English” (Harmer

2007): the group of EFL learners, who do not have a particular reason to study

English, will find a difficulty to practice their English in their real life. Moreover,

Paul (2003) cites that; “adults may have told them [EFL learners] English is

important, but unless they are in an environment where there is a lot of English

around them, they are unlikely to feel a deep emotional need for the language”.

From these statements, the environment of “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul

2003) also gives the bigger persuasion to learners’ emotion about the important of

studying English, rather than the impulse that is given by their parents, teachers,

or peers.

As “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003); the first year students of

Junior High School in Indonesia also study English that is felt very different from
 50

their own: Indonesian or their mother tongue, do not use the alphabet in their own

language, and may not deeply understand why they are learning English in the

first place. If an English teacher wants them to adopt a positive and active

approach to learning with a clear sense of direction, he or she must success in

giving an effective approach to them. Moreover, in English class, an English

teacher should use English for classroom interaction with “EFL learners” (Harmer

2007, Paul 2003). There may also be times when an English teacher needs to use

the students’ native language to help introduce activities, but if possible he or she

should try to use English accompanied by mime and gesture. As cited by Phillips

(1993: 6), “in a feedback session … where the aim is for the children to express

their feeling and attitudes, it would be counter-productive to expect them to use

their limited knowledge of English”. As proposed by Phillips (1993), it will make

a teaching learning process becomes “counter-productive” if an English teacher

still forces his or her students: “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to use

only English in whole English class time. Further Phillips (1993) proposes that;

“what is important is that the children are given clear guidelines on when they are

expected to use English and when their first language is permissible”. Teaching

“EFL learners” is quite different from teaching “ESL learners”, because “EFL

learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) sometimes need the use of their native

language besides English.

From those discussions above; a lesson plan which manages times when

“EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) are expected to use English and when

their native language is allowed, is the best solution in teaching English for EFL.
 51

2.2.6.3 Learner Differences

In the learner differences, basically, Junior High School students are quite

different with Elementary or Senior High School students. Their differences are in

(1) “age” and (2) “levels” (Harmer 2007: 14-19).

Moreover, Harmer (2007: 14) proposes that; “learners are often described as

children, young learners, adolescents, young adults or adults”. These criteria are

basically from the learners’ age. Furthermore, Harmer (2007) describes; “the term

children is generally used for learners between the ages of about 2 to about 14”. It

seems that between the ages of about two until fourteen years old, students are

still in group of “children” (Harmer 2007). Moreover, he suggests that; “within

education … students are generally describe as young learners between the ages

of about 5 to 9, and very young learners usually between 2 and 5”. In this case,

Harmer (2007) also tries to classify in more detail in grouping the ages of “young

learners”: between the ages of about five until nine years old, and “very young

learners”: between the ages two until five years old.

Further, a basic question then arises about in what ages it is safe to call

students as “adolescent”. Furthermore, Harmer (2007) proposes that; “at what

ages it is safe to call students adolescents is often uncertain, since the onset of

adolescence is bound up with physical and emotional changes rather than

chronological age”. It seems that there is no pattern in classifying the ages of

adolescent; since it is bound up with physical and emotional changes. However,

“this term [adolescents] tends to refer to students from the ages of about 12 to 17,

whereas young adults are generally thought to be between 16 and 20” (Harmer
 52

2007). Finally, Harmer (2007) gives the description that in the ages of twelve until

seventeen years old is for “adolescents”, and sixteen until twenty years old is for

“young adults”. But it is not an absolute pattern which can be used in classifying

the ages of students as “adolescents” (Harmer 2007); as cited by Phillips (1993:

3); “there are many factors that influence children’s maturity: for example, their

culture, their environment (city or rural), their sex, the expectations of their peers

and parents”. Based on Phillips (1993), the students’ culture, environment, sex,

and the expectations of their peers and parents also give an influence in their

maturity.

From those statements above, it is clear enough to say that students of Junior

High School are “adolescents” (Harmer 2007), although some of them maybe

haven’t got their maturity yet. Further, Harmer (2007: 15) says that:

One of the greatest differences between adolescents and young

children is that these older children have developed a greater capacity
for abstract thought as they have grow up. In other words, their
intellects are kicking in, and they can talk about more abstract ideas,
teasing out concepts in a way that younger children find difficult.
Many adolescents readily understand and accept the need for learning
of a more intellectual type.

The another difference between “adolescents” and “young children” (Harmer

2007) is about their ability in accepting the abstract concepts, while “young

learners” still find a difficulty in talking about more abstract ideas than

“adolescents” (Harmer 2007). Besides that, as cited by Harmer (2007: 15); “at

their best, adolescent students have a great capacity for learning, enormous

potential for creative thought and a passionate commitment to things which

interest them”. It seems that, dealing with their maturity; “adolescents” (Harmer
 53

2007) have enormous capacity of curiosity to learn something new especially

which interests them. The most important characteristic of “adolescents”, as

proposed by Harmer (2007) that; “adolescence is bound up with a search for

identify and a need for self-esteem. This is often the result of the students’

position within peer group rather than being the consequence of teacher

approval”. “Adolescents” (Harmer 2007) are still looking for their identity and a

need for self-esteem, thus, an English teacher of Junior High School, where

“adolescents” (Harmer 2007) are as his or her students; should know those

adolescents’ characteristics and the way to manage them; one of the effective

ways is by grouping them within their peer groups.

Meanwhile, in grouping of learner’s levels, as cited by Harmer (2007: 16),

“teachers of English generally make three basic distinctions to categorise the

language knowledge of their students: beginner, intermediate and advanced”.

Moreover, Harmer (2007: 16-17) also explains in more detail about these basic

distinctions: “beginners are those who don’t know any English and advanced

students are those whose level of English is competent, allowing them to read

unsimplified factual and fictional texts and communicate fluently”. This level

distinction is based on the students’ mastering in English; where for who do not

know any English are in “beginner” level, and whose English is competent are in

“advanced” level. Then, Harmer (2007) also argues that; “between these two

extremes, intermediate suggests a basic competence in speaking and writing and

an ability to comprehend fairly straightforward listening and reading”.

“Adolescents” (Harmer 2007), who are categorized in “intermediate” level, offer a

 54

basic competence in learning English. Therefore, an English teacher of Junior

High School should maximize this great potential in order to get the best result in

mastering English.

There are other characteristics of intermediate students that Harmer (2007)

proposes; the first, “success is less obvious at intermediate level” (Harmer 2007:

18). It means that, adolescents’ purposes in learning are easily disturbed by their

peer groups; this is caused they are still looking for their identity and a need for

self-esteem. Another characteristic of “intermediate” students is the situation of

the “plateau effect” (Harmer 2007). The “plateau effect” based on Harmer (2007:

280) is the situation “when students reach a stage where they think consciously or

unconsciously that their English is good enough and so find it difficult to learn

more sophisticated language”. This situation of “plateau effect” (Harmer 2007)

usually occurs when “adolescents” (Harmer 2007) fell that their ability in

mastering English is good enough; then they do not try to learn English in more

advance. Moreover, Harmer (2007: 18) also tries to explain this situation;

“intermediate students have already achieved a lot, but they are less likely to be

able to recognise an almost daily progress. On the contrary, it may sometimes

seem to them that they don’t improve that much or that fast anymore”. Actually,

“adolescents” (Harmer 2007) have a lot of potential in learning something new;

but it will become useless if they are still trapped in “plateau effect” (Harmer

2007). The best way is to help “adolescents” (Harmer 2007) recognize their

progresses.
 55

From those statements, we can draw a conclusion that Indonesian Junior

High School students are “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) because they

study English as a foreign language and live in country: Indonesia where English

is not the native language; or as “general English” (Harmer 2007), although not all

of them; because their purpose in studying English is only to be able to

communicate with others who also speak in English, and in classroom context;

they often do not have a particular reason for going to English classes. Parallel

with these, almost all Indonesian Junior High School students are also

“adolescents” (Harmer 2007); because commonly they entered Elementary School

in the ages of five or six years old and then continued to Junior High School in the

ages of eleven or twelve years old, which based on Harmer (2007); term

“adolescents” tends to refer to students from the ages of about 12 to 17, but it is

not a rigid pattern, because adolescent-ages are also depend on the students’

maturity itself. As students of Junior High School, “adolescents” (Harmer 2007)

are also grouped in “intermediate” (Harmer 2007) level; who have a basic

competence in speaking and writing and an ability to comprehend fairly

straightforward listening and reading. In this case of intermediate level, an

English teacher has to aware of the situation of “plateau effect” (Harmer 2007) or

the situation when students reach a stage where they think consciously or

unconsciously that their English is good enough. By grouping Indonesian Junior

High School students within their peer groups or supporting their daily progress,

an English teacher can easily manage and maximize their enormous potential in

mastering English.
 56

2.2.7 Speaking Activities in English Class

Speaking activities in English class is quite important, especially for Junior

High School students. Based on Harmer (2007: 37), “the way that teachers talk to

students – the manner in which they interact with them – is one of the crucial

teacher skills, but it does not demand technical expertise”. Moreover, as Harmer

(2007: 38) also suggests that; “there is a continuing debate about the amount of

time teachers should spend talking in class. Classes are sometimes critised

because there is too much TTT (Teacher Talking Time) and not enough STT

(Student Talking Time)”. Thus, speaking is still the most important way in

teaching language; besides listening, writing, and reading, especially in learning

English. Although based on Harmer (2007); speaking does not demand technical

expertise from an English teacher, but it can also become “counter-productive”

(Phillips 1993) if a teacher does not know when the appropriate time for him or

her to speak and when the time for his or her students. Further, there are some

factors which have influences in speaking activities in English class: (1) teacher

talk, (2) students talk, and (3) reasons for teaching speaking.

2.2.7.1 Teacher Talk

In classroom context, as proposed by Holmes (1986: 19); “teacher talk

serves many functions”. At very general level, moreover, he explains more about

these three broad functions: (1) as “the informing function”, (2) as “the directive

or management function”, and (3) as “the questioning or eliciting function”

(Holmes 1986).
 57

The first function of teacher talk, as mentioned before by Holmes (1986):

“the informing function”, is “to deliver new information to students”. This is all at

once as the basic function of a teacher him or herself that is to teach or to deliver

new ideas or concepts as the knowledge for his or her students. Furthermore,

Holmes (1986) also argues that this function appears because “teachers are

generally older and knowledgeable than their pupils and more statusful by virtue

of their role as educators and instructors”. The relation between a teacher and

students are marked by the role: a teacher as the educator and students as the

learners. Then, the second function of teacher talk: as “the directive or

management function” (Holmes 1986) is “for potential directive intent”. Thus,

this concept makes a teacher plays multifunction, besides as the educators, a

teacher also has to play the role as the director in classroom context. As the

director, of course, a teacher should direct or manage his or her students and all

that related to learning activities, in order to make an effective and efficiency

teaching learning process. The last function of teacher talk: as “the questioning or

eliciting function” (Holmes 1986) is “to evaluate the materials which are given;

do pupils understand or do not”. Finally after giving explanations about the

materials which are given or after managing all that related to teaching learning

process, now a teacher plays the role as the evaluator. This function is to check

whether students understand the materials which are given or do not.

Further, a problem occurs about the time of teacher talk, as cited by

Delamont (1976), Flanders (1970), Khoo (1986), and Stubs (1983) in Holmes

(1986: 19-20), “all over the world in all types of classrooms, including traditional
 58

and open-plan, teachers dominate the available talking time”. In this case, when

an English teacher dominates the talking time, it means more less the time which

available for students to practice their English in the classroom.

As previous discussions about learning English in this study; students

actually who need more time to practice their English, not their teachers. In this

case, for Indonesian students who are categorized as “EFL learners” (Harmer

2007, Paul 2003), they have no time to practice their English in the outside but in

the classroom. Parallel with this, Harmer (2007: 38) states that; “overuse of TTT

[Teacher Talking Time] is inappropriate because the more a teacher talks, the less

chance there is for the students to practice their own speaking – and it is the

students who need the practice, not the teacher”. Moreover, he also explains that;

“if a teacher talks and talks, the students will have less time for other things, too,

such as reading and writing” (Harmer 2007). We can imagine about the situation

where a teacher only talks and talks without thinks about chances for his or her

students to speak, so there is no feedback, and the result from this one-way

communication is that students cannot develop their skills in mastering English.

For these reasons, again Harmer (2007) proposes that; “a good teacher maximises

STT [Students Talking Time] and minimise TTT”. Overuse of “TTT” or “Teacher

Talking Time” (Harmer 2007) only will give no benefit for both teachers and

students; because a teacher only will find him or herself in one-way

communication so that students also have no time to practice their English in the

classroom effectively and efficiently.

 59

Perhaps, therefore, we should not talk simply about the difference between

STT and TTT, but also consider “TTQ (Teacher Talking Quality)” (Harmer

2007), as explained by Harmer (2007: 38); “in other words, teachers who just go

on and on, using language which is not especially useful or appropriate, are not

offering students the right kind of talking, whereas teachers who engage students

with their stories and interaction, using appropriate comprehensible input will be

helping them to understand and acquire the language”. “TTQ” or “Teacher

Talking Quality” (Harmer 2007) offers a solution in giving students chances to

practice their English, because a teacher engages them with such as some kind of

stories in English, which can stimulate them to speak up using their English.

Thus, a good English teacher should not only maximize his or her “TTT” or

“Teacher Talking Time” (Harmer 2007) within a teaching learning process, but

also should consider about “STT” or “Students Talking Time” (Harmer 2007).

The solution from this case, in order to give students chances to speak in English,

a teacher also can apply “TTQ” or “Teacher Talking Quality” (Harmer 2007),

which can engage students to take a role of speech within a teaching learning

process.

2.2.7.2 Students Talk

In order to get the best result in a teaching learning process, besides using

“TTQ (Teaching Talking Quality)” (Harmer 2007), it is also quite recommended

for an English teacher to allow his or her students to practice their English by

giving them enough chances of “STT (Students Talking Time)” (Harmer 2007).
 60

Parallel with this idea, Holmes (1986: 26) states that; “to counteract the

advantages of too much teacher talk it has been suggested by a number of the

researchers that teachers should create more opportunities for pupils to talk to

each other”. It is clear enough that actually students who need to practice their

English, not their teachers. Holmes (1986) also argues that; “for language

learners, in particular, talk is essential in order to develop their oral competence”.

English students, whether “ESL learners” or “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul

2003), actually need the time to practice their English, and speaking activities

within a teaching learning process is very essential time for them to practice, as

cited by Holmes (1986); “educational researchers have suggested that talk is an

essential means of exploring new ideas, of relating new knowledge to old, and

thus of better assimilating of new information”. In the other hands, instead of

reaching the goals of a teaching learning process, a teacher prefers to give “closed

questions” rather than “open questions” (Barnes 1969 in Holmes 1986: 20).

Furthermore, based on Barnes (1969); “closed questions have only one acceptable

answer”. It seems that in “closed question” (Barnes 1969), a teacher does not need

any further information from his or her students. Parallel with this, Holmes (1986)

also argues that “closed questions” also actually have very limited value for

learners: (1) “pupils spend very little time using the language they are learning”,

and (2) “pupils have little opportunity to initiate interactions”. In the “closed

questions” (Barnes 1969, Holmes 1986) a teacher only gives questions which do

not need the students’ comprehensive answers. This situation only will make
 61

borders for students to develop their English. The example of “closed questions”

(Barnes 1969, Holmes 1986) is given by Holmes (1986: 20):

(i) The teacher asks a question:

e.g. What do we do with a saw?
(ii) The pupil responds:
e.g. Cut wood.
(iii) The teacher provides evaluative feedback:
e.g. Yes.

From the model above; it seems that a conversation will end when the student

answered the teacher’s question, and also for that “in fact the teacher had a

particular answer in mind” (Holmes 1986: 21), so, the teacher does not need any

further information from his or her students. This, case of course, will give a limit

space for students to develop their skills in mastering English.

Another type of question is “open questions” (Barnes 1969 in Holmes 1986:

20) to which “a number of different answers would be acceptable”. Of course the

characteristic of “open questions” (Barnes 1969, Holmes 1986) is a teacher will

have much less control over the content of the students’ response. Furthermore,

Holmes (1986: 21) also gives the example of “open questions”:

Teacher :
What’s the special about the kiwi?
Pupil A :
Got a long beak.
Teacher :
He’s got a long beak. Good.
Pupil B :
He’s got um he’s got um…
Pupil C :
Whiskers.
Pupil D :
Whiskers like a cat.
Pupil E :
He’s got no wings.
Teacher :
He’s got no wings. Good. But let’s think. Has he got no
wings or has he got little wings?
Pupils : No wings }
Little wings }
Big ones }
Little little }
Teacher : He’s got little wings hasn’t he?
 62

As Holmes (1986) tries to explain that; “the importance of the rising intonation of

‘good’ signaling to the children that more is required”. When a teacher gives

“open questions” (Barnes 1969, Holmes 1986), it means that; he or she needs

answers as much as possible from his or her students.

From those statements, in STT (Students Talking Time)” (Harmer 2007), it

is better for a teacher to use “open questions” rather than “closed questions”

(Barnes 1969, Holmes 1986); because “open questions” gives more chances for

students to give their comprehensive answers. In order to encourage “EFL

learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to speak in English, an English teacher can

divide class up into pairs and groups so that each individual child will be able to

speak English more. Grouping students in “small group or pair work” (Holmes

1986) also can be used as an alternative to full class questions and answer

sessions; it becomes the appropriate way since most of them are “adolescents”

(Harmer 2007) who need belonging within their peer group. By grouping them

into some pairs or groups, it will give the opportunities to them in practicing their

English in the class.

2.2.7.3 Reasons for Teaching Speaking

For the first, it is best not to think of listening and speaking as skills to be

focused on independently. That is because, when one student is speaking, another

is listening. Furthermore, there some reasons for getting students to speak in the

classroom, as cited by (Harmer 2007: 123): (1) “Speaking activities provide

rehearsal opportunities – chances to practice real-life speaking in the safety in the

 63

classroom”. “Rehearsal”, as explained more by Harmer (2007: 281), is “when

students do SPEAKING-AS-SKILL activities which are very much like the kind of

speaking tasks they will have to do in real life – similar to WRITING-FOR-

WRITING”. Students can safely practice their English in the classroom without

being worried about making mistakes. (2) “Speaking tasks in which students try to

use any or all of the language they know provide feedback for both teacher and

students”. In this case, both a teacher and other students can see how well each

student is doing: both how successful he or she is, and also what language

problems he or she is experiencing. (3) “The more students have opportunities to

active the various elements of language they have stored in their brains, the more

automatic their use of these elements become”. Thus, it means that students will

be able to use words and phrases fluently without very much conscious thought.

Besides these reasons for getting students to speak in the classroom, another

important thing in teaching speaking in English class of Junior High School is the

teacher’s ability to make natural and enjoyable situations during the class. Parallel

with this, Paul (2003: 76) argues that; “many teachers feel it is necessary to do a

lot of choral drilling and mechanical pattern practice to give the children enough

chances to speak, but this is not effective if we want the children to use English

communicatively and spontaneously”. Choral drilling and mechanical pattern

practice are worked in memorizing or introducing a new pattern but may be failed

if a teacher wants his or her students to use their English communicatively and

spontaneously.
 64

2.2.8 The Use of Code-Switching in English Class

When “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) enter English class, they

should enter a world of English. Of course, as an English teacher definitely wants

them to only speak English. But then, students may easily lapse into speaking

their native language if the activities are not clear or too difficult; so this is a job

for an English teacher to make sure that the activities he or she introduces are

clear enough and within the students’ capabilities. Moreover, in teaching English

in Indonesia, an English teacher should consider two elements of the use of code-

switching in English class: (1) whether code-switching as a language interference

in classroom context or not, and (2) using students’ L1, since most of them are

“EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003).

2.2.8.1 Code-Switching as a Language Interference in Classroom Context

The previous discussions conclude that an English teacher is suggested to

use the students’ L1 within a teaching learning process, as the notice, it is used as

the last method when all the methods are failed. The questions then arise: whether

code-switching is as a language interference in classroom context or not, and is it

appropriate or not for an English teacher if he or she allows “EFL learners”

(Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to use their L1 or native language frequently within

leaning process. The second question, where students frequently in using their L1,

of course only will make the amount of English that they use in class may become

less and less over time, and as the consequence; a teaching learning process will

be far from the aim of learning English itself. For the first question, Skiba (1997:
 65

15) states that; “code-switching can be both beneficial and a possible language

interference, depending on the situation and the context in which it occurs”. Code

switching can be seen “as a language interference in the classroom” (Skiba 1997)

when “students may see code-switching as an acceptable form of communication

in society, and would be comfortable switching languages in every day normal

conversation”. It seems that code-switching can become a language interference

in the classroom when students prefer to switch their English to other languages

because they think that this is a normal situation as in every day conversation.

When the situation which is mentioned above occurs within a teaching learning

process, further, Skiba (1997: 15) argues that; “this would put those who are no

bilingual at a disadvantage, because they are not be able to communicative

effectively”, or at least this situation will disturb other “EFL learners” (Harmer

2007, Paul 2003) who want to practice their English within English class.

In other cases, Skiba (1997: 2) also proposes that; “code-switching is not a

language interference on the basis that it supplements speech”. Dealing with Skiba

(1997) that code-switching is “as a language interference in classroom” or “not a

language interference”, is depend on the situation and the context in which it

occurs. Furthermore, Skiba (1997: 2) explains that; “where it is used due to an

inability of expression, code-switching provides a continuity in speech rather than

presenting an interference in language”. When code-switching is used to maintain

the students’ communication to run smoothly; “it supplements speech” (Skiba

1997), then code-switching is no more a language interference in classroom

context. Parallel with Skiba (1997), there are some scientists who argue that code-
 66

switching is not as a language interference in classroom, as far as it supplements

speech: Milroy and Muysken (1995) in Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 24)

emphasize that code-switching is not a sign of communicative deficit; “code-

switching does not usually indicate lack of competence on the part of the speaker

in any of the languages concerned, but results from complex bilingual skills”.

Moreover, Shin and Chanseawrassamee (2007: 24) argue that; “…code-switching is

a helpful strategy, not a sign of linguistic deficit”. Thus, it is clear enough that code-

switching may be viewed as an extension to language for bilingual speakers rather

than an interference and from other perspectives it may be viewed as interference,

are “depend on the situation and context in which it occurs” (Skiba 1997: 6). In

general, although “code-switching is not a language interference” (Milroy and

Muysken 1995, Shin and Chanseawrassamee 2007, and Skiba 1997), it is best for

an English teacher to establish the rule that only English is allowed, and then relax

the rule for special situations such as asking some questions, or by dividing a class

into teams and giving minus points when one of the teams speaks in their native

language.

2.2.8.2 Using Students’ L1

In teaching English as a foreign language, it is suggested for an English

teacher to do not too force “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) to only use a

full-time English which is like native speakers do, but rather to be more flexible in

allowing them to use their mother tongue. Parallel with this idea, Harmer (2007:

38) argues that; “all learners of English, whatever their situation, come to the
 67

classroom with at least one other language, their mother tongue (often called their

L1)”. In point of fact, the students’ “mother tongue” or “L1” (Harmer 2007) is the

students’ first language that they acquired in long time before they learn English.

Thus an English teacher can use “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) to facility the

communication within a teaching learning process, as Phillip (1993: 6) suggested

that; “…while it is essential to use as much English as possible in class, there are

times when the use of English is counter-productive”. About the times when the

use of English in a teaching learning process is “counter-productive” (Phillips

1993), furthermore, Phillips (1993) explains that; “it is often more economical and

less frustrating for all concerned if you give instructions for a complicated activity

in the children’s mother tongue, or check the instructions you have given by

asking the children to repeat them in their own language”. Based on Phillips

(1993), a teacher also can use “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) either to give

instructions for a complicated activity or to check the instruction he or she has

given.

The use of “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) within a teaching learning

process is suggested, as long as it is used when the situation needs a complicated

explanation, as Gardner (2000: 8) says; “you [an English teacher] will need to use

your own language when the situation in your classroom requires more

complicated language…” Again, the use of “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) is

allowed as long as the situation becomes complicated. Gardner (2000: 8) also

gives the example of using “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007): “an activity may be

too complicated to explain clearly in English, or you may have a problem in your
 68

classroom which cannot be handled using the language presented [English]…”

This is the time where a teacher needs a language that can help him or her to

handle the situation; “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) serves this function.

Another sample is also given by Gardner (2000): “… you may sometimes need to

check that your learners have understood your instructions in English”. Checking

the students’ understanding by using “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) is the

solution, since a teacher is also as the “evaluator” (Holmes 1986) within a

teaching learning process.

However, the use of “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) is only as the last

way if other method which is given by a teacher has failed, as cited by Gardner

(2000: 9), “but we strongly advice using translation only when every other

method has failed”. Actually there are a lot of methods that can be applied to

make students think in English, as Gardner (2000) explains; “it is important to

make the learners think, so you should try using pictures, actions, descriptions,

and so on, and only use translation if these don’t work”. An English teacher can

use pictures; as one of the method for example, in order to make students think

what the appropriate meaning of English words that are given.

It can be draw a conclusion that deals with Paul (2007: 38-39); “an English-

language classroom should have English in it, and as far as possible, there should

be an English environment in the room, where English is heard and used as much

of the time as possible”, although sometimes a teacher is permitted to use “the

students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) to handle the complicated situation during leaning

process of “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) or to evaluate the students’
 69

understanding about materials which are given. Thus, for these reasons, as

suggested by Paul (2007: 39), “it is advisable for teachers to use English as often

as possible, and not to spend a long time talking in the students’ L1”. It means that

a teacher has to manage when the time to use “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) or

not at all, because actually there are a lot of methods besides it that can be applied

to make students think, such as: “using pictures, actions, descriptions, and so on”

(Gardner 2000). The key to use “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) is by making a

lesson plan, as cited by Gardner (2000) the aim is “to plan when you [an English

teacher] will use English and when you will use your own language”. Since

teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia is assigned for students who

almost all of them are “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) and are from

different cultures, it is needed the lesson plan which manages about the time in

using “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007).

2.2.9 The Functions of Teachers’ Code-Switching

The teachers’ use of code-switching within classroom context is not always

performed consciously; which means that teachers are not always aware of the

functions and the outcomes of the code-switching process. Therefore, in some

cases it may be regarded as an automatic and unconscious behavior. Nevertheless,

either conscious or not, it necessarily serves some basic functions which may be

beneficial in a teaching learning process. The functions of the teachers’ code-

switching in classroom context as mentioned by Sert (2005: 5-8) are: (1) “topic

switch”, (2) “affective functions”, and (3) “repetitive functions”. In the first function
 70

of the teachers’ code-switching: “topic switch”, moreover (Sert 2005) states that;

“the teacher alters his or her language according to the topic being taught”. This is

a common situation in grammar instruction, that an English teacher usually shifts

their language to “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) in dealing with particular

grammar points which are taught at that moment. At this point, as suggested by

(Sert 2005) that; “a bridge from known [in this case is the students’ L1] to

unknown [in this case is English] is constructed in order to transfer the new

content and meaning is made clear in this way”. So this first function of the

teachers’ code-switching can be used as “a bridge” (Sert 2005) to transfer English

and meaning from an English teacher to his or her students clearly, although in

these cases, the students’ attention is directed to the new knowledge by making

use of code-switching and accordingly making use of native tongue.

In addition to the function of code-switching named as “topic switch”, the

phenomenon also carries “affective functions”, as described by Sert (2005: 5-8)

that; “affective functions are important in the expression of emotions, and

building a relationship between the teacher and the student”. In this respect, code-

switching is used by teachers in order to build solidarity and intimate relations

with their students. In this sense, an English teacher may use code-switching for

creating a supportive language environment in the classroom. As mentioned

before, this is also not always a conscious process on the part of teachers.

The last function of the teachers’ code-switching is “repetitive function” (Sert

2005). In this case, an English teacher uses code-switching “to clarify the meaning

of a word, and stresses importance on the foreign language content for better
 71

comprehension” (Sert 2005: 5-8). Following the instruction in target language:

English, teachers switch to “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) in order to clarify

meaning, and in this way stress the importance on the foreign language content for

efficient comprehension. However, the tendency to repeat the instruction in “the

students’ L1” (Harmer 2007) may lead to some undesired characters to the

students’ behavior, as when a student who is sure that the instruction which is

given in English will be followed by “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007)

translation, he or she may lose interest in listening to the former instruction which

will have negative academic consequences, as he or she is exposed to foreign

language discourse limitedly.

However, for the notice, as cited by Gardner (2000: 9) that “an English

tacher is allowed to use the students’ L1 when other method which is given to

students has failed”. Thus, again, the most important for an English teacher who

teaches “EFL learners” (Harmer 2007, Paul 2003) is the lesson plan which

manages about the time in using “the students’ L1” (Harmer 2007).

2.2.10 The Functions of Students’ Code-Switching

Parallel with the cases for the teachers’ code-switching, students also are not

always aware of the reasons for code-switching as well as its functions and

outcomes. Although they may unconsciously perform code-switching, it also

clearly serves some functions either beneficial or not. Some basic functional

perspectives of the students’ code switching as proposed by Sert (2005: 9-13) are: (1)

“equivalence”, (2) “floor holding”, (3) “reiteration”, and (4) “conflict control”. The
 72

first function of the students’ code-switching: “equivalence” (Sert 2005),

moreover he explains that; “equivalence gives the students the opportunity to

communicate without gaps because of incompetence”. In this case, students make

the use of the native equivalent of a certain lexical item in target language and

therefore code switch to their native tongue. This process may be correlated with

the deficiency in linguistic competence of target language, which makes students

to use the native lexical item when they have not the competence for using the

target language explanation for a particular lexical item. So “equivalence” (Sert

2005) function is as a defensive mechanism for students as it gives them the

opportunity to continue communication by bridging the gaps resulting from

foreign language incompetence.

The next function to be introduced: “floor-holding” (Sert 2005) is used

“when the students cannot remember a word, and uses their native language to

avoid a break in communication”. During a conversation in the target language,

students fill the stopgap with native language use. It may be suggested that this is

a mechanism used by students in order to avoid gaps in communication, which

may result from the lack of fluency in target language, in this case is English.

Students perform code-switching for “floor holding” (Sert 2005) generally have

the same problem: they cannot recall the appropriate target language structure or

lexicon. It may be claimed that this type of language alternation may have

negative effects on learning a foreign language; since it may result in loss of

fluency in long term.

 73

The third consideration in the students’ code-switching is “reiteration”

(Sert 2005). As described by Sert (2005) that; “reiteration helps the student to

become more competent in language they are trying to learn”. The reasons for this

specific language alternation case may be two-folds: first, “students have not

transferred the meaning exactly in target language yet”. Second, “students may

think that it is more appropriate to code switch in order to indicate the teacher that

the content is clearly understood by them” (Sert 2005). In this case, the message

in target language: in this case is English, is repeated by students in native tongue

through which they try to give the meaning by making the use of a repetition

technique.

The last function of the students’ code-switching to be introduced by Sert

(2005) is “conflict control” that may be used “to avoid misunderstanding when a

child does not use a correct meaning in communication”. For the potentially

conflictive language use of students: which means that the students tend to avoid a

misunderstanding or tend to utter words indirectly for specific purposes, code-

switching is as a strategy to transfer the intended meaning. The underlying

reasons for the tendency to use this type of code-switching may vary according to

the students’ needs, intentions or purposes. Additionally, the lack of some

culturally equivalent lexis among the native language and target language, which

may lead to violation of the transference of intended meaning, may result in code-

switching for conflict control; therefore possible misunderstandings are avoided.

The students’ shift also suggests that code-switching is used to

accommodate their lack of English competence. While trying to speak in English,

 74

they resort to their preferred language to try to clarify their message when facing

insecurities in pronunciation and vocabulary choices. The effect of repeating the

same message by switching code performs the functions of reinforcing their point.

In this sense, code-switching functions as a strategy to promote communication

between teachers who use English and Javanese-dominant students.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

As my discussion before, in order to avoid the vast area of code-switching or

code-mixing itself; my study only concerns code-switching in classroom context;

that only focuses on the use of code-switching by Indonesian Junior High School

students in English class: code-switching which were performed in English class

by the first year students of SMP Negeri 1 Kragan, Kabupaten Rembang in the

academic year of 2009/2010.

Furthermore, the objective of my study is to discuss, explain and describe

the functions of code-switching which were performed in English class by the first

year students of SMP Negeri 1 Kragan, Kabupaten Rembang in the academic year

of 2009/2010.

There are four forms of code-switching in my study: from (1) English into

Indonesian, (2) Indonesian into English, (3) English into Javanese, and (4)

Javanese into English. Then, in order to know about the use of code-switching in

English class of Junior High School, we should consider about the functions of

Junior High School teachers’ code-switching and also the functions of Junior

High School students’ code-switching itself. Moreover, to discuss, explain and

 75

describe the functions of code-switching which were performed in English class

by the first year students of SMP Negeri 1 Kragan, Kabupaten Rembang in the

academic year of 2009/2010; I deal with Sert (2005) about “the functions of

teachers’ code-switching”: (1) “topic switch”, (2) “affective functions”, and (3)

“repetitive functions”, and also about “the functions of students’ code-switching”:

(1) “equivalence”, (2) “floor holding”, (3) “reiteration”, and (4) “conflict control”.

Finally, we should consider about “TTT” or “Teacher Talking Time”

(Harmer 2007) and also about “STT” or “Students Talking Time” (Harmer 2007)

within a teaching learning process.

(*for more, please visit my Facebook at:

huey_bubble@yahoo.co.id)